|
|
#11
03-07-2006, 08:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Global Warming
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Over the last 300K years the CO2 and average earth temp line up. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know much about the issue but I'm fairly certain that one of the biggest arguments against the theory in general is that the data is limited to very recent years. There's only data for the last fraction of a percent of that 300k year graph. [/ QUOTE ] We have CO2 samples from the vostok ice core going 1 million years and paleothermometry has temperature data going back 400K years. The CO2 data is solid and undebatable. The paleothermometry data is much more complex. ugh... done with politics for the day. 
|
|
#13
03-07-2006, 08:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Global Warming
The problem with the global warming debate is that the science (which I believe is incontrovertible) is used to draw the wrong conclusions. At the end of the wickipedia article there is a fairly good estimate of the cost of the impacts of global warming. But what is not there is an estimate of the cost of "doing something" to try and prevent global warming. Basically what it comes down to is this: significantly reducing greenhouse emissions can only be done by crippling the world economically. While the costs associated with global warming could be trillions of US dollars, the costs associated with the various Kyoto-style plans to reduce greenhouse emissions are in the hundreds of trillions, with no guarantee that they would work.
The number one killer of human beings is not heat, or cold, or tornados, or hurricanes, or droughts, or any other climate-related disaster. It is poverty. And the only cure for poverty is increased productivity that can raise standards of living. The cost of coercively shackling world productivity to reduce emissions will be a drastic increase in world poverty, and poverty brings starvation, disease, misery, and death on unimagineable scales. Human beings live in every environment on Earth, from the blistering cold to the blistering heat. Some places will get worse, and some places will actually get better. People will have to move. But they will have decades over which to do it. There's already enough poverty in the world. Don't advocate policies that will multiply it ten or a hundred fold. My $0.02 on global warming.
|
|
#14
03-07-2006, 08:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Global Warming
"As far as I know there isn't a single top scientist whose given a voice on that website. "
It's all links, no editorials to speak of. This requires one to use critial thought and objectivity, difficult for many on the left. Add in any connection to Fox, the mention of the beast...
|
|
#16
03-07-2006, 09:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Global Warming
[ QUOTE ]
"As far as I know there isn't a single top scientist whose given a voice on that website. " It's all links, no editorials to speak of. This requires one to use critial thought and objectivity, difficult for many on the left. Add in any connection to Fox, the mention of the beast... [/ QUOTE ] Fox News used to be one of my favorite news stations. Their reporting on foreign affairs is normally pretty decent. But that station has gone down the shitter lately. When it comes to scienctific research, they depend on hollywood: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post3932931 If you still think it's so good, try and find a link to Richard Smalley or some other leading scientist in the field. Good luck. As far as I know there is only one and he gets a quarter a million a year + all grants paid for from Exxon to cheer for the other side.
|
|
#17
03-07-2006, 09:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Global Warming
[ QUOTE ]
While the costs associated with global warming could be trillions of US dollars, the costs associated with the various Kyoto-style plans to reduce greenhouse emissions are in the hundreds of trillions, with no guarantee that they would work. [/ QUOTE ] Just call them a fraud, cuz that's what they are. [ QUOTE ] Basically what it comes down to is this: significantly reducing greenhouse emissions can only be done by crippling the world economically. [/ QUOTE ] This is complete crap and you know it. We've been over this before. Hell the programs your economists that you link to want would tax the economy 20x more than smalleys 5 cent tax to develop technology. So you are full of crap on this one. Ok... now I'm done with politics till tomorrow. ugh... no control.
|
|
#18
03-07-2006, 09:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Global Warming
[ QUOTE ]
This is complete crap and you know it. [/ QUOTE ] Must you be such a douchebag? Clearly I don't know any such thing. Can you explain how human greenhouse emissions can be reduced, for example by one half (preferably by one order of magnitude), without crippling the world economically?
|
|
#19
03-07-2006, 09:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Global Warming
[ QUOTE ]
"As far as I know there isn't a single top scientist whose given a voice on that website. " It's all links, no editorials to speak of. This requires one to use critial thought and objectivity, difficult for many on the left. Add in any connection to Fox, the mention of the beast... [/ QUOTE ] this is awesome coming from the guy with an insane paranoia of CBs and even the New York Times. Journalism 101: Print media = waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than TV media.
|
|
#20
03-07-2006, 11:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Global Warming
I am completely ignorant on global warming, but one thing i've always believed that i think most people can agree on is that in the long run pollution = -ev (sorry for the cheesy poker reference) and that we should try to keep it to a minimum, this does not mean that we should control the cow population so that nitrogen from their manure doesn't contaminate the local water supply, but try to keep things within reason...
i apologize if this is incoherent I'm coming down with something nasty and i should be asleep...
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
