The Forum > General Discussion > The Climate Debate is Ridiculous
The Climate Debate is Ridiculous
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- 6
-
- All
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 29 July 2010 12:52:30 PM
| |
This mornings Sydney morning Herald has a story worth a look.
Last year was Australia's second hottest year, 2005 still holds the record for the hottest on record. NSW had its hottest year on record last year. Posted by Belly, Friday, 30 July 2010 5:40:24 AM
| |
Foxy - "The "Climate Debate" is ridiculous? Only to people
who believe that we have infinite resources, and that we can keep on doing what we're currently doing with no ill effects whatsoever." Now tell me So what on earth are you talking about "Climate Change" or "Resource depletion" Noting that the two are completely separate and independent of one another As for doing what we are doing... well so long as you are free to do what you want and I am free to do as I want we have no problem But the moment you think you are in any way entitled to dictate what I may do is when we will have a war. Posted by Stern, Friday, 30 July 2010 9:09:32 AM
| |
Dear Stern,
I wasn't aware that I was dictating anything to you or anyone else, merely pointing out that we should be careful how we mistreat our natural environment as we all too easily forget that ultimately we are dependent on it for our survival as any other species. And you tell me that this is not connected to a change in global climate? The most far-reaching effect of air pollution, is a change in the global climate. As a result of the burning of fuels and wastes and the razing of forests, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is steadily increasing. This gas creates a "greenhouse effect" on the planet, for it allows solar rays to reach the earth's surface but prevents heat from radiating back into space. The consequence will be a global warming, which will eventually cause the melting of the polar ice caps, a rise in sea levels, and changes in weather patterns. This warming effect is already under way, and average global temperature is expected to rise by 3 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2030. This seems like a small change, but minor fluctuations in global temperature can have drastic consequences: during the last ice age, when much of North America was covered with sheets of ice more than a mile thick, average temperature was only about 5 degrees cooler than today. You say that if I dictate to you what you can or can't do, there will be a war? I would not presume to dictate anything to you Sir. Nature will take care of that. By the end of the twenty-first century, global temperature may have increased by as much as 9 degress. But, nobody can tell you anything - I get it. You're fine with not knowing what the ultimate consequences would be for life on the planet and for human society. Posted by Foxy, Friday, 30 July 2010 11:02:05 AM
| |
Purely in the interests of adding balance to Belly’s piece:
“Dozens of people are reported to have died from hypothermia as a cold snap sweeps across several countries in LATIN AMERICA. In Argentina, 33 people died as temperatures dropped down to around -14 degrees Celsius in the centre of the country. Many homeless people are among the victims who died in the capital city Buenos Aires…1,000 cattle died in the freezing temperatures, mostly in the northern part of the country.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/21/2959907.htm “Brace yourself for more winters like the last one, northern EUROPE . Freezing conditions could become more likely: winter temperatures may even plummet to depths last seen at the end of the 17th century, a time known as the Little Ice Age. That's the message from a new study that identifies a compelling link between solar activity and winter temperatures in northern Europe.” http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627564.800-quiet-sun-puts-europe-on-ice.html “SYDNEY has shivered through its coldest June day in 27 years, with the mercury plummeting to 4.7 degrees in the city. Not since 1983 has a colder June temperature been recorded, the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) said on Tuesday.It was also the coldest day of any month since 2007...And NSW is not the only state rugging up.Tuesday was MELBOURNE'S coldest day in almost two years...A day earlier, BRISBANE had its coldest morning of the year" http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/sydney-has-coldest-june-day-in-27-years-20100629-zija.html ( And, yes, I know AGWers see any change: cold ,hot ,wet ,dry, as "EVIDENCE" their creed is the one true faith --but the world has known similar changes many times before -- such being more in line with natural cycles than systems swinging wildly out of balance) Posted by Horus, Friday, 30 July 2010 8:45:52 PM
| |
Dear Horus,
Atmospheric pollution is not an inevitable outcome of industrial technology; it derives also from political decisions to tolerate pollution rather than bear the costs - probably including slower economic - of limiting it. We do have some antipollution laws, but these are clearly insufficient to prevent potential grave damage to the atmosphere. Further control of pollution is politically difficult, however, for the economic interests behind "smokestack" industries are a powerful political lobby that is reluctant to commit the necessary resources to the task. Incidentally, modern technology is even polluting space beyond the upper atmosphere. At present, according to Ian Robertson, "Sociology," - " there are over 15,000 detectable artificial objects orbiting the earth, of which only about 235 are operational satellites. The rest are space junk - nonfunctioning satellites, spent rockets, exploded boosters, oxygen cylinders, and the like. Additionally, there are several million other objects that are too small to track, most of them bits and pieces resulting from collisions of space junk and from intentional detonations by experimental "killer" satellites." "Further collisions among these various objects create a constant rain of new fragments. Because of its high impact velocity, this orbiting garbage now represents a serious threat to spacecraft and working satellites. A piece of metal as small as a walnut travelling at six miles a second has the explosive impact of a hand grenade, and could easily penetrate a space shuttle, killing its occupants. Some multimillion-dollar satellites are already believed to have stopped functioning because of such damage, and any future space station will have to be protected against space-junk impacts." "In fact, the possibility of collisions would be a continuing threat to any space-based missile defense system, for its components could be accidentally disabled by chance encounters with space debris." The point that I'm trying to make is that the use of any resources can't be considered in isolation from its potentially complex environmental impacts. Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 31 July 2010 10:56:47 AM
|
I’m not sure about your reference to “total skeptic”, how can being skeptical about anything be absolute? unless it is intended to radicalize the tag.
When deciding on a “solution”, my first response will always be, tell me all I need to know about the “problem”. That doesn’t seem hard now does it?
So when I ask questions about AGW I’m told many things that describe the problem. Then I say OK, that’s fine but where is the other side of the story? Everyone knows there is always another side. Now I’m in trouble on multiple counts, for inferring that there IS another view, for looking for it, for researching it and for speaking about it.
No matter how hard I try to balance the two opposing scientific views in order to qualify the “problem” I am challenged and labeled as skeptical. Why is it that requiring all the information I need about the problem so wrong?
If I am willing to state that if both contrary scientific camps conduct a full review of both sets of research I will accept this, why is this not acceptable to AGW advocates?
When AGW advocates can step away from their “singular science” perspectives and promote inclusive reviews of the science, is when this whole contentious debate will be resolved.
All I’m asking is for advocates to say, yep! That makes perfect sense, put all the scientists together and let them review everything and sort out a conclusion. Without this any "solution" will be flawed.
Why examinator, is this so hard?