So I've been doing a bit of reading lately, and have unearthed (if you'll excuse the pun) some great material. This quote from a NOVA interview especially struck me

But I think maybe one of the best analogies is the case of smoking. It was a difficult problem to deal with because the hazards induced by smoking were way off in the future, so people didn't really want to quit smoking. They didn't really feel that it was that imperative to do it right away, and there wasn't really that leadership from above. It eventually came about, partially through the courts, but partially through general popular opinion changing.

While there's still one in every bunch, you aren't likely to run into many people today who still believe that smoking cigarettes leaves a protective coating on your lungs. But, not all that far into the past, the number of people who refused to believe there was any negative consequence to their health (or their children's health) from smoking cigarettes, because they enjoyed smoking too much. We have the same phenomenon today, where people who enjoy WalMart prices refuse to believe there could possibly be any negative consequences from our unplanned and uncontrolled experiment with pollution.

I don't think there are many people who would deny the byproducts of human existence on this planet are damaging to the environment in a variety of ways. Comparing Global Warming to Tobacco Smoking seems like a bad match up though. Even many years ago, there was sufficient scientific data to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that smoking was extremely adverse to your health. If the man made global warming people had that kind of smoking gun today, there probably wouldn't be all the hoopla and debate.

Regardless, even without bulletproof scientific evidence, the Republican lead U.S. government, like many other governments around the world, is making pronounced efforts to reduce carbon emissions, get off of fossil fuels, and reduce our eco-footprint. Perhaps one good outcome of all this hysteria is that the NRC appears to be once again issuing licenses for the opening of new Nuclear Power plants in the states.

The damage to the Ozone is caused by the large quantities of methane gasses being released, and the source is cattle. Eat a Steak, Save the Ozone.

Originally Posted by Capt Quirk

The damage to the Ozone is caused by the large quantities of methane gasses being released, and the source is cattle. Eat a Steak, Save the Ozone.

Doesn't eating steak encourage the cattle industry, and thereby create more methane?

Every technology or every invention created by man can give a very pleasing time for an individual and yet almost all of them are hazardous in their own way. Like cars and cigarettes (for health and pollution), liquors and fur coats. I don't think that it is denial or something that makes one do things even though he knows it has an offset, he just enjoys it too much that he wont car whats the result of doing so...

I wonder how many "pollutants" the last two volcanic eruptions pumped in to the air??

And it's May 9th, and I froze my butt off on the motorcycle ride to work this morning..

did you know that the earth goes through natural cycles every few centuries where it undergoes massive climate changes? so isnt it possible this is just another one of those changes? also multinational companies have a lot to gain by hopping on the bandwagon.
in years to come we'll compare it too mccarthyism and the red scare.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

I wonder how many "pollutants" the last two volcanic eruptions pumped in to the air??

The same amount the oceans have stopped being able to absorb lately.

Originally Posted by robertjordan

did you know that the earth goes through natural cycles every few centuries where it undergoes massive climate changes? so isnt it possible this is just another one of those changes? also multinational companies have a lot to gain by hopping on the bandwagon.
in years to come we'll compare it too mccarthyism and the red scare.

Hmm. I guess by a "few centuries" you mean about 120 you might be close. The Earth should be in a cooling period but the added CO2 is making it go the other way.


Feydakin, if you think a few volcanic eruptions heat up the Earth, you will want to read up on the subject, because most of the compounds released by volcanoes cool the Earth.

Capt Quirk, where did you pull that info out of?

One thread, tons of misinformation.

Cool, can I buy carbon credits from exploding volcanos??

And I never said heating "or" cooling, I said pollutants..

My biggest questions for all the global warming people.. In the 70s it was global cooling and a coming ice age.. now for the last decade it's been global warming.. Which is it?? And can the climate really stop and change direction in just a couple decades??

What temperature is the "ideal" temperature?? I keep hearing it's too hot.. But no one wants to put a number on it.. It's been getting warmer ever since the last ice age.. So where to we roll back the clock to?? 1980?? 1900?? 1700?? What time frame had the "ideal" temperature?? And finally, why are you so sure that the true ideal temperature for the planet isn't another 5 degrees hotter?? Other than it's uncomfortable for the people and animals currently living here??

Just curious..

And for the record, I'm greener than Al Gore could ever possibly dream of being.. But then I never take a politicians words in to account for much.. I prefer to see what they actually do..

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Originally Posted by Feydakin

My biggest questions for all the global warming people.. In the 70s it was global cooling and a coming ice age

This is a bald faced lie.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...-cooling_N.htm

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.


"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

Joder is right. One thread, too much misinformation.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Perhaps one good outcome of all this hysteria is that the NRC appears to be once again issuing licenses for the opening of new Nuclear Power plants in the states.

So you think new nuclear power plants are a good idea, when there is no satisfactory way to dispose of the radio active by products which will remain a hazard for hundreds of years.

Broadly speaking I am getting to the stage when I think there is more hype for commercial reasons than hard fact around the whole issue.

Originally Posted by aldor

So you think new nuclear power plants are a good idea, when there is no satisfactory way to dispose of the radio active by products which will remain a hazard for hundreds of years.

Nonsense. We can use that depleted uranium for weapons that cut through Iranian armor like buttah, as you well know.

^
Nice to bring a sense of humour to a serious topic.

Originally Posted by aldor

So you think new nuclear power plants are a good idea, when there is no satisfactory way to dispose of the radio active by products which will remain a hazard for hundreds of years.

Good idea for the common people around where the waste is stored or for the corporations who will make the money? It's all according to your point of view.

Sorry, was alive in the 70s and got to watch it all the time on tv.. Just like today, what scientists say, and what if popular in the media/hysteria complex aren't always the same thing.. At the time there was plenty of fear running rampant about the coming ice age.. Sort of like now with the coming melt down..

I did notice that you chose to not respond to my other two points.. Does that mean I get to win those??

Oh yeah -

the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming. Some current warming stories combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures

Despite all the historical shifting from one position to another, many in the media no longer welcome opposing views on the climate. CBS reporter Scott Pelley went so far as to compare climate change skeptics with Holocaust deniers.

“If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel,” Pelley asked, “am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” he said in an interview on March 23 with CBS News’s PublicEye blog.

He added that the whole idea of impartial journalism just didn’t work for climate stories. “There becomes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible,” he said.

Pelley’s comments ignored an essential point: that 30 years ago, the media were certain about the prospect of a new ice age. And that is only the most recent example of how much journalists have changed their minds on this essential debate.

.. emphasis mine ..

http://www.businessandmedia.org/spec...fireandice.asp




Then we have the oh so inconvenient global temperature drop last year.. A mean temperature drop base don an average of all reporting sources of .64C.. Giving back nearly all the warming gained over the last 100 years.. "oops"..

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com...ast-12-months/

I'm willing to give it another year or three to see what happens.. It may bounce back.. But the way we've had the coldest winter in a very long time, and still cold spring, I'm not betting on it..

I don't deny in any way that the earth is constantly under a change both warmer and colder.. I'm not convinced that anyone is qualified to say for a fact that one temperature is better than another.. And that we need to spend billions of dollars to try to force the earth to maintain a specific temperature..

Originally Posted by Feydakin

I'm not convinced that anyone is qualified to say for a fact that one temperature is better than another..

I'm qualified to say that if you're a human, 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit is better than any other temperature.

Actually Forrest, my wife would argue that one with you.. She prefers 98.0, at least that's her normal resting temperature

So what you're saying is that within roughly half a degree F, there is an optimal temperature. Most living things have an ideal temperature, and they're all very close to one another. There are an exceedingly small number of organisms that are able to live in temperature extremes like you'll find in a geyser, making up a fraction of a percent of all living species. And it should go without saying that the temperature of your immediate environment and the availability of resources play huge roles in how easy it is to keep yourself alive. The resources part is a double whammy.

Your objection should be written as

I'm not convinced that anyone is qualified to say for a fact that life is better than death..

Graph aside - head down to the library and find a book called "Elements of Graph Design" and flip to the chapter "How to Lie with Graphs" - humans have adapted over the aeons to a particular range of climate. We don't do so well in droughts, fires, storms like Katrina, etc. We're seeing a great deal of asthma, caused by industrial pollution, along with countless other detrimental effects that most certainly have causes ...