bry623

Did anyone else watch that stupid 10.5 Apocolypse??
I am waiting for part 2 on Tuesday. The only things they didn't show were Hurricanes, Tornados, and Glacier Melt. The Day After Tomorrow called, they want their left wing global warming propaganda back.

MunkyPhil

Hmm, The Day After Tomorrow isn't entirely propaganda, in between making it and releasing it the Larson (I think) ice sheet, which we see breaking up at the start of the film, actually broke up. It's started, just not very fast or as spectacular, and your good self bry or probably any of us don't know enough facts about global warming to hold a valid opinion.

bry623

That is my opinion on "global warming" ...... not enough facts

yustr

So let's not do anything. After all there is a chance that using our atmosphere as a sewer may actually be beneficial.

bry623

I am not saying we should do nothing. I am saying that there are alternative thoughts on climate out there and that the portraying cyclical changes as harbingers of apocolyptic disaster is disingenuious.

The earth always heals itself and we are mostly at is mercy.

Fox

Let's just ignore it- it'll go away. God'll take care of it, and maybe if we leave him a voicemail he can deposit some more black gold into our accounts too.

yustr

Then what should be done?

Here's one idea: don't support Bush or the Republican Congress. Bush has refused to even acknowledge that there might be a problem. The energy policy put forth essentially said all is OK. We'll do a little research but nothing else. The illegal (probably) roll back of regulation concerning power plant emission upgrades by the EPA. The refusal to impose even modest mileage improvement requirements; and then fighting States that try to impose such standards.

All of these and plenty more add up to the obvious conclusion that Bush and his fellow Republican think the status quo is just fine. Sounds like doing nothing to me.

(I'm sure if left to their own devices they would eliminate controls altogether.)


It is equally or more disingenuous to use the 1% to discredit the other 99%. There will always be differing interpretations of observations. But just because you can find one PHD to argue your side doesn't mean there's not consensus in the scientific community as a whole.

And it is equally or more disingenuous to misuse the vocabulary of science to shout down legitimate discussion. To do so is to lower the level of discourse to sound bites. “It’s only a theory” the implication being that there’s no factual basis for it. The facts say global temperatures are rising. Observational evidence provides supporting data. The hypothesis is that man-made factors are causing a build up of atmospheric gases. Scientists have been testing that hypothesis for many years. So far the data support that hypothesis. Could new data appear to change that conclusion? Sure. That’s the process science follows. But to dismiss it because there are assumptions used in the calculations or because not every scientist is in 100% agreement is truly disingenuous.

You are 100% correct. But as George Carlin says “We don't need to Save the Earth. We need to save the humans." Yes, the earth will survive just fine. As it did 60 million years ago and as it did 15K years ago. But ask the dinosaurs or the saber tooth tiger how they did.

bry623

Yustr, I enjoy our discussions.

I do not know of any scientests who agree with my "global warming" is cyclical theory. Has man made machines that affect the environment? Absolutely. I do not agree with any hypothesis based on climate changes since they have been recorded. How far back do our temerature record keeping go? No more than 150 years I'd say. Everything before that is specualtion based on temperatures since then. Any good mathmetician would laugh at data based on that small of a time frame.

While I can say that we could take better care of our environment and admit that pollution is a problem and it is possible that we are affecting the temperatures of the planet, not one liberal has admitted that they could be wrong. A better arguement for the Gore's of the world would be
But, I do not see them every accepting that their is more than one option available (except in abortion *MOD NOTE*which can be discussed elsewhere if we must.

My point exactly. The earth will heal itself. If we ae not the cause, then we have nothing to worry about, if we are, then I guess I'll be using SPF 10,000 before our species is destroyed by our own actions.

ebackhus

FACT: Global warming (if real) won't affect us in our lifetime.

forcifer

they predicted that the ozone layer would get killed in 100 years at this curretn rate. but by then, i think hydrogen will have become the norm

Fox

Hydrogen is ridiculous. How are they going to make the hydrogen? Probably by burning the rest of the coal. And then there's the huge issue of storing it.

We need to begin using energies that are carbon neutral. That excludes the use of any fossil fuel. I'm talking Ethanol, biodiesel, and liquid propane. Stuff that can be produced with a crop.

The bright side of this too will be that the middle east won't have us by the nards anymore. I don't see how a desert could be a particularly suitable place for growing corn or soybeans...

forcifer

hydrogen is alot more abundent then you think. the water is mostly Hydrogen, so that would help. then there would be a water crisis. i vote for nitrogen!

40sondacurb

It sounded like it was about an earth quake so i didn't watch it. I'm from cali so i know it's mostly bull.

MunkyPhil

WRONG! It will and does affect us, just not in a very big way. Before you make comments like this, ask yourselves, 'Do I actually KNOW this, could my argument stand up in a scientific debate?'. I belive 'no' is the answer here.

And Bry, of course global warming is cyclic (and I am a scientist with engineering and biology/physics degrees (I'm now doing a chemistry PhD)), it's as regular as the ice ages and it comes straight after them. Temperatures are recorded in much more subtle ways than using a thermometer by the planet itself, records are kept in ice and sea levels all over the world that go back many millenia. The problem at the moment is that temperatures are slowly rising but we are currently due for another ice age. How can that be? How can things be getting warmer when they should, given the trends of the last so-many-million years, be getting colder? It's isn't odd how this corresponds with the industrialisation of the planet although it isn't entirely for sure.

Fox, carbon neutral IMHO isn't viable. Carbon and carbon based molecules is the best source of energy there is. Why do you think all life is carbon based, because it is the most efficient use uf energy. That's why vegetarians always look ill, not enough carbon from meat. It is worth getting what we can cleanly but it isn't going to suffice, especially with a growing world population. Energy production has to be on a huge scale/

Forcifer, the ozone layer, which had a hole in it above brazil, is repairing itself now and the hole is getting smaller. Hydrogen can also be made in simple chemical reactions with few hazardous by-products. I've done it myself with a 'my first chemistry kit'. I don't think we can make enough of it though but it's worth a try.

IMHO a lot of you are missing the point about sorting this maybe-soon-to-be-a-complete-mess of a planet out. You're right bry, the Earth will heal itself but how do you think your kids and their kids will feel if you're wrong, knowing that you just sat back and didn't take any notice. We should at least try to make things better whether you believe global warming is real or not, if only just for our health. Example, LA used to be a smog filled dump, now look at it, new legislation came in and made it a nice enough place IMHO. I've not been there in a while though.

Nobody has mentioned nuclear by the way, what do you all think about that?

Fox

I didn't say we need to switch to energies that don't have any carbon in them; that would be foolish. We just need to start growing our source of energy so that we don't add any carbon to the atmosphere that wasn't already there in the first place. That's why biodiesel and ethanol make so much sense- they take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in their production, and then put some of it back in when they're burned, but they don't add to it like fossil fuels do.

And hydrogen has to be produced somehow, whether it be burned coal, nuclear power, solar power, etc. so I can't see how it could act as a cure all unless we perfected solar wind, etc.

MunkyPhil

I agree with you on the biofuel issue. It's been shown to be effective in some circumstances.
As for wind power, the UK already has found it isn't as cost effective to build wind turbines as initially thought. It is very difficult to get enough energy out of the wind. During my engineering degree I designed part of a wind turbine for a project and they are hugely complex and it takes a lot of time and effort to get them out there. I've seen the wind farm near Palm Springs too, we haven't got that sort of space over here in the UK which means crap weather. And on an aesthetic level they don't look all that nice in huge numbers either. Solar works on a household level and is effective in the right climate, again I live in the UK. Renewable energy sources are not going to be enough to power the world on their own. Like I said, nuclear. The problem with nuclear is letting idiots such as the UK and US governments manage it. The french have got it right, while we were going to war they sorted it out. They let people who understand what they're dealing with deal with it.

bry623

Phil, that was a pretty awesome response. I am all for getting us off of oil. Once the world is off of the Middle East's teats, they will lose any influence they have in the world and mad men will not be able to grab and maintain power.

I did not watch part 2 (I played Jedi Acadmey instead), but I could hear my wife yelling "LAME!!" alot.

MunkyPhil

Thanks bry, I hope I've opened a few minds if only just a little.

So what about nuclear? Nobody seems to have an opinion here.

bry623

My only problem with nuclear is the extreme danger caused by something cataclysmic. Of course, if they had nuclear powered stuff back in the 60's, maybe we'd all have super human abilities!

yustr

I am strongly against it. I have been since the 1970's when I witnessed first hand the shenanigans being done to promote it.

Here's why:

1) If you look at the entire fuel cycle, it is an extremely dirty process; mining spoils, refining sludge’s, enrichment wastes, and we haven’t even got to the actual fissile material and the associated reaction byproducts.

2) The process is extremely capital intensive. Plants were in the billions many years ago. I’d not venture a guess how much they are today. That’s a lot of debt burden for rate payers to shoulder.

3) These plants, because of #2, perpetuate and exacerbate the concentration of power production. There are numerous issues with this. Not the least of which is loss of local control. The plants are prime targets for terrorists. Add in that the distribution grids are obvious and indefensible targets for wackos (terrorist or otherwise) and the reliance on a few large plants becomes troubling.

4) Uranium is another limited non-renewable resource.

And last but certainly not least:

5) The nuclear power industry is joined at the hip with the nuclear bomb industry. I’m against nuclear bombs.