MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data

[cch5432]

What proposals and remedial actions would have a negative impact? I don't understand how striving to use less in general, seeking alternative and sustainable forms of energy, and doing our part to conserve the resources we do use through recycling and other techniques could have a negative impact on the environment.

Two things, two different directions:

 

1. The impact on the environment- certain things that Gore says would be fine, but I think it is dangerous to try to prevent the earth from going through its climate change cycles.

 

2. The impact on us- a lot of his ideas, which are to stop something that many scientists do not believe is man-made, would have bad effects on the economy and in turn the everyday person's checkbook.

 

I have no problem with private organizations that fight climate change through alternative fuel research, conservation efforts, etc. It is when people are forced to support things financially that they don't.

[Hoot Gibson]

What proposals and remedial actions would have a negative impact? I don't understand how striving to use less in general, seeking alternative and sustainable forms of energy, and doing our part to conserve the resources we do use through recycling and other techniques could have a negative impact on the environment.

Assuming that the earth is cooling instead of warming and further assuming that increased CO2 and methane production increases atmospheric temperatures, then such methods as Carbon sequestration, population control, orbiting solar shades, reducing the world population of cattle and other methane producing livestock, and any other method to reduce human production of greenhouse gases would have the effect of accelerating the cooling of the climate.

 

Conversely, if we modestly assume that man is incapable of noticeably impacting global temperatures, then diverting money into ineffective and expensive, unproven climate change mitigation strategies and away from legitimate enterprises would needlessly cause human poverty and suffering.

[Roots]

Assuming that the earth is cooling instead of warming and further assuming that increased CO2 and methane production increases atmospheric temperatures, then such methods as Carbon sequestration, population control, orbiting solar shades, reducing the world population of cattle and other methane producing livestock, and any other method to reduce human production of greenhouse gases would have the effect of accelerating the cooling of the climate.

Conversely, if we modestly assume that man is incapable of noticeably impacting global temperatures, then diverting money into ineffective and expensive, unproven climate change mitigation strategies and away from legitimate enterprises would needlessly cause human poverty and suffering.

 

I am unaware of "orbiting solar shades", their purpose, effect, and cost and I feel that the earth has its own ways of controlling the populations of the species that live on it. But in response to your comment on sequestering carbon emmisions and controlling human production of greenhouse gases- are you saying that the environment and its inhabitants would be better off if we continued to waste and emmit harmful toxins into it? Would this somehow benefit the earth by helping to slow "global cooling". I thought your opinion of how to handle issues of the environment was to have a "hands off" approach? A real "hands off" approach would be to limit our impact as much as possible by conserving what we use and using as many sustainable resources as possible.

[Roots]

Two things, two different directions:

 

1. The impact on the environment- certain things that Gore says would be fine, but I think it is dangerous to try to prevent the earth from going through its climate change cycles.

 

2. The impact on us- a lot of his ideas, which are to stop something that many scientists do not believe is man-made, would have bad effects on the economy and in turn the everyday person's checkbook.

 

I have no problem with private organizations that fight climate change through alternative fuel research, conservation efforts, etc. It is when people are forced to support things financially that they don't.

 

I agree that a greater impact could be seen by private organizations and individuals becoming involved in environmental sustainability compared to government mandates to do. While I do beleive we should have federal programs to research how we can best reduce our impact and how we can harness sustainable forms of energy, the majority of the difference is going to have to come from individuals and private organizations.

 

As far as your reasons you listed, what specific mandates are you speaking of and what are the specific implications on us? If you are speaking of frivolous spending on things like orbital sun shields (I am unaware of what these are but I was introduced to them by Hoot in the above post) and similar projects I agree that funds would probably be spent best elsewhere. I am absolutely interested in spending as little money as possible, but small individual actions would create a great difference with minimal impact on our pockets.

[halfback20]

We are part of earth's environment just as much as every other animal, plant, and inanimate object is a part. It is clear that scientists do not understand what, if any, impact human activities have on our climate. If we do not know whether we are changing the climate, then taking remedial actions to mitigate our effect would be nonsensical, as the remedial actions could have a negative impact on the climate.

I agree that humans should strive to minimize their impact on our atmosphere by limiting the pollutants that are spewed into the atmosphere and into our streams and oceans but I see that as a separate issue from climate change mitigation, such as the goofy proposals that have made Al Gore the extremely wealthy, albeit clownish, man that he is today.

 

I agree with most of that. Humans should do their best to minimize any damage that we might do to the environment.

[cch5432]

I agree that a greater impact could be seen by private organizations and individuals becoming involved in environmental sustainability compared to government mandates to do. While I do beleive we should have federal programs to research how we can best reduce our impact and how we can harness sustainable forms of energy, the majority of the difference is going to have to come from individuals and private organizations.

 

As far as your reasons you listed, what specific mandates are you speaking of and what are the specific implications on us? If you are speaking of frivolous spending on things like orbital sun shields (I am unaware of what these are but I was introduced to them by Hoot in the above post) and similar projects I agree that funds would probably be spent best elsewhere. I am absolutely interested in spending as little money as possible, but small individual actions would create a great difference with minimal impact on our pockets.

 

Things like the Kyoto Protocol

[Hoot Gibson]

I am unaware of "orbiting solar shades", their purpose, effect, and cost and I feel that the earth has its own ways of controlling the populations of the species that live on it. But in response to your comment on sequestering carbon emmisions and controlling human production of greenhouse gases- are you saying that the environment and its inhabitants would be better off if we continued to waste and emmit harmful toxins into it? Would this somehow benefit the earth by helping to slow "global cooling". I thought your opinion of how to handle issues of the environment was to have a "hands off" approach? A real "hands off" approach would be to limit our impact as much as possible by conserving what we use and using as many sustainable resources as possible.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. The only reason for restricting CO2 emissions is the theory of global warming. Otherwise, plants love the stuff and it makes no sense to spend billions or trillions keeping industrial plants from allowing it to enter the atmosphere. The money can be better spent elsewhere, including reducing the emission of toxic pollutants such as SO2, mercury, etc.

[bballfamily]

I dont think that our goal should be to "cool" or "warm" the world. Our goal should be to limit our lasting effect on the earth so that the earth can continue with its natural cycle or way of working. We don't understand the earth well enough and haven't been a part of it for long enough to understand these cyclical heating and cooling stages of the earth and how we fit into that equation, but we do have the ability to limit our affect on them. My stance is not one of political interest or anything related to that, but merely, in my opinion, a common sense approach to how we interact with the world we live in. In my opinion, God, in some way, created the earth that we live in and we should be gracious enough to be responsible participants in its care.

 

We have been doing a lot in the last 45-50 years. We have cleaned up our water and air. I remember in the 1970's when the air over over Cincinnati was a full-time haze during the summer. That all change over the next few years as they improved the air quality. The only reason Cincy was close to air quality acuple of years ago is that the air standards became even tougher.

 

I liked what I saw on the show Ice Road Truckers with how the Canadians were handling pollution in looking for natural gas in the Arctic Region. I can only assume we are doing the same and I am quite sure that is how it would be handled if we drilled in the Anwar Region.