I consider our work to reduce the speed at which global warming occurs akin to having tune ups and oil changes, etc. It's all preventative maintenance and keeps a much bigger problem from occuring.

 

You wouldn't go without an oil change or tune up because your car would breakdown eventually.

 

I mean, it's possible you'd never have a problem, but I don't think you'd say "until we know, what's the point?"

 

You protect your investment in your car. Why not protect the human investment in our planet?

I understand your sentiment, but this is a flawed analogy from the standpoint that we do know what happens when a car goes without an oil change and proper maintenance. To avoid doing so is to avoid accepting known facts.

 

I have no doubt that a certain degree of global warming is occuring. None. I also have no doubt that scientists and activists were worried about global cooling 30 years ago. It is well documented.

 

The difference is how we interpret the facts, and to actually determine what is causing the fluctuations. To get everyone all worked up to fix the problem, and not have a legitimate understanding of what is causing the problem in the first place makes as much sense as putting air in your tires and changing wiper blades when your car is really out of gas.

I understand your sentiment, but this is a flawed analogy from the standpoint that we do know what happens when a car goes without an oil change and proper maintenance. To avoid doing so is to avoid accepting known facts.

 

I have no doubt that a certain degree of global warming is occuring. None. I also have no doubt that scientists and activists were worried about global cooling 30 years ago. It is well documented.

 

The difference is how we interpret the facts, and to actually determine what is causing the fluctuations. To get everyone all worked up to fix the problem, and not have a legitimate understanding of what is causing the problem in the first place makes as much sense as putting air in your tires and changing wiper blades when your car is really out of gas.

Thirty-five years ago the two biggest atmospheric worries were cooling caused by particulates in the atmosphere and acid rain. Particulate emissions have been very significantly reduced along with the sulfur compounds that contributed to acid rain. Another VERY significant point is that atmospheric modeling was in its infancy. The models used today are orders of magnitude better than the models of the early 70s. (Think of the changes in computing power.) It is a logical falacy to claim that once wrong means always wrong. I don't agree that there is not a legitimate understanding of what is causing warming. There is not a complete understanding, but waiting for the perfect solution and a complete understanding before initiating any action is analysis paralysis. As I have said in an earlier post, anything that requires a wholesale displacement of our way of life will not happen. That does not mean that we shouldn't move rapidly to initiate energy conservation and to begin the move away from an oil based transportation system. Moving away from oil would help our economy and our national security. The US has the potential to lead the world in developing 21st century energy solutions. If not, we can compete with China and India for oil supplies and continue to fund both sides in the war on terrorists.

Thirty-five years ago the two biggest atmospheric worries were cooling caused by particulates in the atmosphere and acid rain. Particulate emissions have been very significantly reduced along with the sulfur compounds that contributed to acid rain. Another VERY significant point is that atmospheric modeling was in its infancy. The models used today are orders of magnitude better than the models of the early 70s. (Think of the changes in computing power.) It is a logical falacy to claim that once wrong means always wrong. I don't agree that there is not a legitimate understanding of what is causing warming. There is not a complete understanding, but waiting for the perfect solution and a complete understanding before initiating any action is analysis paralysis. As I have said in an earlier post, anything that requires a wholesale displacement of our way of life will not happen. That does not mean that we shouldn't move rapidly to initiate energy conservation and to begin the move away from an oil based transportation system. Moving away from oil would help our economy and our national security. The US has the potential to lead the world in developing 21st century energy solutions. If not, we can compete with China and India for oil supplies and continue to fund both sides in the war on terrorists.

 

 

That's a logical post.

 

I was reading an article that said some of the global warming is being caused by all the forest fires out West ( I don't know if that's true). If it is, as the author postulates, some of the very environmentalists that are screaming about global warming were the same folks that shut down foresting activities (which had been creating jobs by the way) out West in the state and national parks. The environmentalists claimed that forest fires were part of the natural process. As a result of the shut down of foresting, there is now a lot more dead fall in the forests, which makes the forest fires so much harder to control and put out; thus supposedly contributing to global warming. Kind of ironic, isn't it?

Here's a doubly sad story. Gorillas are being killed in the Congo. Why? So the locals can burn the forests for the illegal charcoal trade.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070816-gorillas-congo.html

Here's a doubly sad story. Gorillas are being killed in the Congo. Why? So the locals can burn the forests for the illegal charcoal trade.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070816-gorillas-congo.html

 

 

I agree that its sad and frankly wrong. But we have to temper our criticism of the people a bit when we remember all the things we did wrong (to wildlife and the Native Americans) settling this country. We also have to remember those people in the Congo are probably doing the illegal activity in order to survive. It brought to mind a comment the Columbian Vice Minister of Trade made recently to me at a meeting. If the Americans are serious about shutting down the growing of illegal drugs in Columbia, then the Americans are going to have to pass the Free Trade Agreement with Columbia so that alternative ways of making money can be created. If there aren't other jobs available for people to feed, cloth and shelter themselves, drug production will remain strong in Columbia and those drugs will end up in America. Food for thought for the anti-free trade folks the next time they want to shut our borders to free trade in the misguided belief that such will preserve American jobs.

The burning of the forests is a double whammy on the environement. First, it adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Second, it destroys trees that help reduce CO2.

The difference is how we interpret the facts, and to actually determine what is causing the fluctuations. To get everyone all worked up to fix the problem, and not have a legitimate understanding of what is causing the problem in the first place makes as much sense as putting air in your tires and changing wiper blades when your car is really out of gas.

Actually, this policy would make no sense. Let's not do anything until we know 100% exactly what the answer is. By the time we find all the answers that please all the nay-sayers...it could be too late.

The burning of the forests is a double whammy on the environement. First, it adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Second, it destroys trees that help reduce CO2.

Exactly! I can't seem to get the idea across to people that it isn't just a "global warming" issue. That's too easy.

 

There is not a complete understanding, but waiting for the perfect solution and a complete understanding before initiating any action is analysis paralysis. As I have said in an earlier post, anything that requires a wholesale displacement of our way of life will not happen. That does not mean that we shouldn't move rapidly to initiate energy conservation and to begin the move away from an oil based transportation system. Moving away from oil would help our economy and our national security. The US has the potential to lead the world in developing 21st century energy solutions. If not, we can compete with China and India for oil supplies and continue to fund both sides in the war on terrorists.

Amen! :ylsuper:

I consider our work to reduce the speed at which global warming occurs akin to having tune ups and oil changes, etc. It's all preventative maintenance and keeps a much bigger problem from occuring.

 

You wouldn't go without an oil change or tune up because your car would breakdown eventually.

 

I mean, it's possible you'd never have a problem, but I don't think you'd say "until we know, what's the point?"

 

You protect your investment in your car. Why not protect the human investment in our planet?

As I've stated soooo many times before, I have no problem with cleaning up the environment, that's spending money wisely. I don't agree with throwing money away. That's what we're doing if we spend on this wild goose chase called global warming. All it does is line the pockets of politicians and their so called experts who are on the payroll.

Exactly! I can't seem to get the idea across to people that it isn't just a "global warming" issue. That's too easy.

But global warming is what this thread is about.

But global warming is what this thread is about.

Hush, or I'll discuss last night's festivities.

Hush, or I'll discuss last night's festivities.

I have a picture.

My opinion on global warming:

 

1. It exists- whether or not we can affect it one way or the other, I'm not sure, but I doubt it

2. Humans aren't slowing it but our influence is fractional

3. I don't think we should devote so much money to it when their are other problems more deserving of funds

Those who advocate doing little or nothing to combat global warming are too eager to see the world as black or white. The world is full of grays. Even if you're not certain that human activity is significantly contributing to global warming (though the preponderance of scientific opinion has long been there), wouldn't a prudent approach be to recognize the risk that you are wrong? For those who don't believe in man-made global warming, what are the consequences of your being wrong? If left unchecked, serious impairment of the earth as a habitable planet. That's a pretty serious risk even if, in your mind, it's only a 10% possibility. Should we do nothing even to mitigate the risk of you being wrong? Most people buy life insurance even though the risk of dying are extremely low and most people expect not to need it. Why? Because the consequences of being wrong are so serious. Simple concepts in risk management 101, folks.

Those who advocate doing little or nothing to combat global warming are too eager to see the world as black or white. The world is full of grays. Even if you're not certain that human activity is significantly contributing to global warming (though the preponderance of scientific opinion has long been there), wouldn't a prudent approach be to recognize the risk that you are wrong? For those who don't believe in man-made global warming, what are the consequences of your being wrong? If left unchecked, serious impairment of the earth as a habitable planet. That's a pretty serious risk even if, in your mind, it's only a 10% possibility. Should we do nothing even to mitigate the risk of you being wrong? Most people buy life insurance even though the risk of dying are extremely low and most people expect not to need it. Why? Because the consequences of being wrong are so serious. Simple concepts in risk management 101, folks.

 

Why is this so difficult to understand?