Is Global Warming just a load of BS...

by Zep 46 Replies latest social current

  • Satanus


    It's true that fires cull the forests. It's also true that many places have been replanted. However, the overwhelming trend, especially in areas that the public doesn't see much, is towards cutting and leaving nude. Erosion continues the damage. Fire leaves behind a very different surface w lots of wood/dead trees as a cover for the soil. This gives protection for smaller shrubs, plants and yes, new trees to grow. In fact, pine cones need the high temp of fire in order to open and release their seeds.

    Instead of clearcut, if only larger trees were cut, and most of the undersized ones left, then forests would naturally regrow.


  • stillajwexelder

    I think the balanced answer is that the JUry is still out on this one - There is some scientific evidence for global warming but it is by no means conclusive. The US and developed nations are in a difficult situation - yes they are big energy consumers but if they changed overnight it would be hugely damaging to their economies. Something should be done - but all have to agree and keep to their QUOTAS -and that will not happen countries wil lcheat

  • upside/down

    It's true Cinton did like to smoke a little of the "environment" every now and then. But at least he didn't inhale. lol


    p.s.- It's a crying shame what is happening to the planet. A reasonable and loving "creator", would certainly "step in" before it's a total loss. I know I would.

  • Simon

    America is an embarassment. Even Russia has signed up for Kyoto and rattified it.

    C'mon, get with the programme. Stop thinking about short term and "me me me". Think about other people, our kids and grand-kids and the planet.

    I know this will fall on deaf ears ... the same people who voted in the man who is bankrolling todays reckless spending with money from the next generation.

    The one thing that Blair could and should have got right - forced Bush to get his finger out and tow the line when he needed us. Instead god-boy was too busy sucking up to him and having his photo taken.

  • stillajwexelder

    Unfortunatly Simon the president can not go it alone - most Americans (well many) whine when Gasoline gets above $1.30 per gallon - with that sort of mentality in the entire population it wil lnot be an easy thing for ANYpresident to and certainly not GW Bush

  • Incense_and_Peppermints

    Green Groups Hope Suit Forces U.S. Hand on Warming8 Hour,41 minutes Ago

    [US News]: NEW YORK - Green lobbyists and several U.S. cities hope a lawsuit against U.S. development agencies will force the government to act on global warming, even though President Bush has long insisted there's no scientific proof linking human activity to warming.

    Bush is so slow to act without proof in this instance, yet pushed us into a war with no proof of weapons of mass destruction or that Iraq was responsible for the Twin Towers, or a threat to the United States (and the rest of the world).

  • Midget-Sasquatch

    There's always been fluctuations in the planet's temperature and substantial changes to environments as a result. Scientists can't say for sure just how much of industrialized society's activities are contributing to the increase in temperatures. Thats what some industrialists, firms, and administrations harp on, to legitimize their actions.

    But its undeniable that levels of greenhouse gases have gone up, are still going up and are directly linked to human activities. If its not curbed, the human impact will only increase. Its prudent to put into place some controls now so that we don't exacerbate trends. Maybe the natural sinks in the biosphere are able to buffer our activities to a good extent such that a a runaway greenhouse effect isn't a real threat. But if we're not sure just how much we can push it, why risk it? I don't think wealth for one particular generation is more imporant than the quality of life of successive generations.

  • frankiespeakin

    I think that if we were educated more honestly about the problem of over population and the harm it does to the enviroment I think that would get people to see the need to lighten up on have children. Truthful education can be a big help. The trouble is nobody can agree on this. By controlling the population we could say half it every 75 years very easily,,, if we did that could cut down the population to under a billion in a realatively short time. With less population we wouldn't have to worry as much about the amount of polution we generate(within reason). We could still exploit the earth resorces for our benifit,, but at a much safer level. Everyone could have plenty because of tecnology.

  • Zep

    Logan said:

    "I took an enviornmental biology course last semester and I can say quite confidently that the vast (vast!) majority of scientists believe global warming is a real problem."


    This is what I hear too. Among the scientific community there is very little debate about the fact that Global warming is happening, AND THAT IT IS MAN MADE.


    The problem seems to be that there is a growing number of people denying that it is either happening or that man is causing it. High profile environmentalist David Bellamy, for example, who's a botanist and not a climatologist for the record, denies that its a problem...and says that it's even a good thing.

    As far as Hydrogen goes as an alternative fuel. What I also hear is that its a bit of a scam. You have to burn a lot carbon just to produce one fuel cell?

    As far as alternative energy sources are concerned in general, a lot of scientists are saying that it's just not going to be enough to maintain our current rate of consumption THERFORE we will have to turn go NUCLEAR as a sort of stop gap measure before alternative sources become viable. OR we will have to reduce consumption, THIS ESSENTIALLY MEANS JOB LOSSES AND REDUCED LIVING STANDARDS, just for those who only think in terms of modern economics.

    On Kyoto, the main problem that countries who refuse to sign Kyoto (Australia and USA) have with the treaty is that it doesn't require growing economies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as much as 1st world countries. The retort from these growing economies is that the western industrial countries are the biggest polluters as far as Greenhouse gas is concerned. They have basically used up Earths Green-house gas credit limit themselves and profited very nicely from their use. Growing economies are p*ssed off that they don't get to profit from greenhouse gas use like the west has, and instead have to shoulder the same burden as western countries as far as reducing green house gas emissions are concerned. The US and Australia(countries that refuse to sign Kyoto) are just being selfish is what it breaks down to. They are too concerned about maintaining their market dominance over growing economies.

  • Spartacus

    Earth has been through how many ice ages? And what I have read and heard that each ice age starts with the warming of the earth that is part of a cycle of coming out of the last ice age which will everntually lead to another ice age. The warming of the earth throws more water in the atmosphere and sends it to the poles of the earth that freezes it, over thousands of years the earth slowly rolls into an Ice Age and then slowly warms again. All that depends on the antics of our Sun and the wilderness of the universe as our solar systems obits our galaxy every 300 milliion years. I think it's over hyped. But we all should follow the general principle to not POLLUTE. Check this article out regarding the hype and who is really behind it....

    Here is the hype....

    'Global warming' hype reaches fever pitch
    But critics doubting data compare ideology behind movement to Communism, Nazism
    Posted: January 24, 2005
    1:00 a.m. Eastern
    © 2005
    As cold weather sweeps across much of the U.S. and buries New England in several feet of snow, global warming hyperbole reached new heights today as an apocalyptic international report, "Meet the Climate Change," warned the world is reaching a "point of no return" that will bring unprecedented famine and drought catastrophes.

    The report was assembled by the Institute for Public Policy Research in Britain, the Centre for American Progress in the United States and the Australia Institute.

    It warns the danger point will be reached when temperatures rise by 2 degrees Celsius above the average world temperature prevailing in 1750, before the industrial revolution ? and the world may be only 10 years away.

    While the global average temperature has risen only 0.8C, according to the data gathered by those advocating radical actions, the global warming lobby sees the glass half empty ? cautioning the world has little more than a single degree of temperature latitude before the crucial point is reached.

    In addition to famine and drought of spectacular proportions, the report warns of increased disease, sea-level rise and the death of forests.

    "There is an ecological time bomb ticking away," said Stephen Byers, former British transport minister and a close ally of British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

    The report urges all G-8 countries to agree to generate a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025, and to double their research spending on low-carbon energy technologies by 2010.

    The report comes just three weeks before the Kyoto Protocol, designed to deal with the climate change issue, takes legal effect on signatories Feb. 16.

    The controversial Kyoto Protocol became binding on industrialized nations who have signed onto it after Russia reluctantly moved to ratify it.

    But, Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin reports, Vladimir Putin's personal economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, said last summer Russia's approval of Kyoto came under severe duress ? an "all-out and total war on Russia" directed by Blair. He said the pressure included "bribes, blackmail and murder threats."

    Illarionov said global warming advocates refused to answer questions posed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at a Moscow symposium. He claimed British science advisers tried to stop skeptics from being heard.

    "When this attempt to introduce censorship ... failed, other attempts were made to disrupt the seminar," said Illarionov.

    Illarionov said "none of the assertions made in the Kyoto Protocol and the 'scientific' theory on which it is based have been borne out by actual data. ... There is no evidence confirming a positive linkage between the level of carbon dioxide and temperature change. If there is such a linkage, it is of a reverse nature. ... The statistical data ... are often considerably distorted if not falsified."

    While some in the U.S. have offered sharp criticism of the ideology driving the global warming crusade, none of the rhetoric has been as penetrating as Illarionov's, who compared it "with man-hating totalitarian ideology with which we had the bad fortune to deal during the 20th century, such as National Socialism (and) Marxism."

    "All methods of distorting information existing in the world have been committed to prove the validity of these theories," he continued. "Misinformation, falsification, fabrication, mythology, propaganda. Because what is offered cannot be qualified in any other way than myth, nonsense and absurdity.

    Illarionov's comments, made in a press conference, were quoted by the Moscow News but received little international attention.

    He described the protocol as "one of the biggest, if not the biggest, international adventures based on man-hating totalitarian ideology, which, incidentally, manifests itself in totalitarian actions and concrete events, particularly academic discussions, and which tries to defend itself using disinformation and falsified facts. It's hard to think of any other word but 'war' to describe this."

    Yuri Izrael, one of the three vice chairmen of the panel, said: "The Kyoto Protocol aims to impoverish our country, and not only us but our children and grandchildren."

    "There have been examples in our fairly recent history of how a considerable portion of Europe was flooded with the brown Nazi ideology, the red Commie ideology that caused severe casualties and consequences for Europe and the entire world," said Illarionoc. "Now there is a big likelihood that a considerable part of Europe has been flooded with another type, another color of ideology, but with very similar implications for European societies and human societies the world over. And now we in Russia are facing a historical opportunity: Are we going to let the genie out of the bottle as the previous generations let the Nazi and Communist genies out of the bottles or not?"

    While Putin agreed to participate in Kyoto, some observers believe he left Russia enough wiggle room for his country to back out of ratification.

    Under the Kyoto Protocol, undeveloped Third-World nations ? including China, India, Brazil and Mexico ? will be free to produce whatever they want. Yet 82 percent of the projected emissions growth in future years will come from these countries. This is why many critics see is global wealth redistribution scheme rather than a real plan to improve the environment.

    "The wealth of the United States is, and has always been, the target," says Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center. "The new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics."

    He predicts international corporations, "who owe allegiance to no nation, will bolt America and move their factories, lock, stock, and computer chip to those Third World countries where they will be free to carry on production. But that means the same emissions will be coming out of the jungles of South America instead of Chicago. So where is the protection of the environment? You see, it's not about that, is it?"

    He points out that hidden in the small print of the treaty is a provision that calls for the "harmonizing of patent laws."
    "Now, robbing a nation of its patent protection is an interesting tactic for protecting the environment, don't you think?" he adds.

    DeWeese concludes: "The fact is that one person now stands between the global warming jackals and economic sanity ? George W. Bush. Will he stand firm in his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol? Or will he capitulate to massive international pressure and sell America's soul?"

Share this