You think global warming is a problem?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Success_Machine, May 1, 2002.

  1. 765 Registered Member

    This is a very interesting discussion, as a layman I am able to follow most of what you people are saying but I'll admit that some of it over my head.

    But you guys are blowing it all out of proportion. If there is indeed a threat of global warming that will mean death and destruction to the life on this planet, then there is a very simple why to stop it, if it is indeed stopable.

    I see it this way.

    As I understand it, the causes of global warming go back to the 19th century and include the greater use of fossil fuels, population growth, chemicals and in general Industrialization.

    Industrialization had it's root in the renissance (sp?) and the period of enlightenment. During this time alchemy became medicine and science moved from herresy to main stream accademics. Universities were founded and life began to improve.

    My argument is simply this:

    Science = Chemicals, polution, waste products, greater need for electricity, greater food production.

    Medicine = Longer life, larger population, less disease.

    Politics = More stable foreign relations, fewer wars, less death from war.

    Science+Medicine+Politics=Global Warming

    This teachs us that the real cause of global warming is Scientists, Doctors and politians.


    1. Burn all colleges and universities to the ground.

    2. Destroy all scientific knowledge that has been gained in the last 500 years.

    3. Destroy all modern techology.

    4. Give all Scientists, Doctors and politians something useful to do for the rest of their lives such as, give them each a shovel and orders to fill in the Grand Canyon.

    There! problem solved... No more polution to cause global warming because the technology to produce it has been destroyed and no one left with the knowledge to recreate the technology.

    Half of the world's population will die of starvation and half of the survivors will die in the insueing wars for what is left. Diseases will flourish and take the lives of 10's of millions every year. lifespans will return to a more managable 40 - 60 years and all will be good again.

    Science got us into this problem (if indeed there is a problem) but it took a layman to get us out.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. kmguru Staff Member


    Your elegant solution is exactly what is proposed by environmentalists and their friends....

    So, you are one of it or not....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Go join the Seirra Club and hand over all your fortunes to them, you will not be needing those technology created fortunes. They are evil.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Mother nature will thank you and after everybody dies, may be mother nature will create a specis that is minus these that her children can soar the stars and make her proud....That has always been any mothers wish.....from animals to humans.....
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. BatM Member At Large Registered Senior Member

    Now, now. That's not true. True environmentalists claim that there are better ways of working WITH nature for the betterment of ALL life on Earth rather than selfishly promoting personal gain without understanding the far reaching effects that can (and does) have on the rest of the life on Earth.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. kmguru Staff Member

    The operative word here is: True

    How many true you have met? I am one...but I dont go around blowing store fronts or lying in front a nuclear material transport. I have designed all sorts of contraptions to reduce pollution in Power plants, Refineries, Chemical plants etc. I am one of those people who have also designed control systems for breeder reactors and safety systems for nuclear power plants to keep it safe so that you can sleep easily.

    The solution is through Quality Research, Science & Technology to find alternate means of doing stuff. By complaining that certain thing is not done itself will not solve anything. Like by complaining about world hunger and impeding biotechnology at the same time does not produce any positive result.

    I am sure you know that.
  8. BatM Member At Large Registered Senior Member

    I dislike using a "broad brush" in talking about any group of people.

    In the case of the Sierra Club (I'm a member), I think most are trying to do the "right" thing for the planet and have had some good successes in many areas. In many ways, I think without organizations like their's, you wouldn't have had the job that you do. The environmentalist pressure on corporations to clean up their act provide you with a living to help corporations do just that.

    Some issues, though, require radical steps to get things done in time to be meaningful. For instance, environmentalist pressure to stop overlogging, overfishing, or overwhaling was necessary to prevent corporations from destroying these (and related!) resources. Without Greenpeace's activities on whaling, would we have a viable population of whales today?

    With respect to nuclear facilities, we've had the well known Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters as well as lesser known ones (such as Tokimura and Chelyabinsk). From these, most people realize that the cost of one single disaster is more than anyone would want (especially in their back yard). Therefore, most (sane) people haven't been convinced that the benefits of nuclear (or chemical -- remember Bopal) truly outweigh the potential costs and, so, are hesitant to support it's use in a big way.

    Personally, I'd like to see more of an effort to bring all the disparate environmentalists together so that they may speak with a single, more informed, voice. Perhaps more scientists should join these organizations to point out what is correct and what is wrong with their positions.
  9. kmguru Staff Member

    I agree. However, there is a major miconception here regarding the words. It is the scientists who screw up. 60 years ago, scientists ruled the day. Today that word is used to describe professors and research lab rats (I mean humans) tinkering with a specific area without the understanding of the global effects.

    Take the example of our forest fires. Thanks to the environmentalists, most forests were left alone rather than managing them. As a result, what we/they tried to preserve went up the smoke.

    When I was in Ohio, I met a few groups who demonstrated in front of the perry nuclear power plant. Having designed nuclear control system, I offered my side of the story. They did not even hear a word I said. They already made up their mind that it should be closed down and everybody should live like the Amish.

    You as a member of Sierra Club - see if anyone will listen to you bringing people from opposing point of view into the club. It wont happen. And even if they bring in a few token people, they will ignore the facts. It is in the nature of extreme groups to shun moderation. That is the basic property.

    The very existence of a fundamentalist is threatened by reason. Look at those terrorists. The worse part is they are partially right.
  10. BatM Member At Large Registered Senior Member

    There are always extremists (on both sides), but I have no idea how well you presented yourself. At that point, they may have felt they'd already done their "due diligence" and your arguments were simply rehashing territory they'd already covered.

    I don't know. The Sierra Club maintains hundreds of email lists for many specific issues (most look like they're oriented toward regional issues). Naturally, you'd have to follow some level of proper ettiquette in discussing the issues, but I don't see any problem in discussing all parts of the issue. My feeling is that the views of the Sierra Club percolate up from its members over time rather than being imposed from the top. Therefore, I don't think you could jump in at the top and quickly change their view -- there are too many other viewpoints in play to make it that easy. Of course, they're no different in being difficult about having their viewpoint changed than any other organization (scientific or otherwise).

    You, of course, realize that this attitude can be applied to both sides.
  11. kmguru Staff Member

    There is no other side. Whether it is nuclear power or biotechnology, we technologists do the best we can to solve a specific problem or demand. We did not set out to push an agenda that the country should have nuclear power plants or bio-enhanced rice to feed the hungry. Like any technology, there are limitations and compromises but the technology is fluid in the sense that people see both good and bad and do their best to reduce the adverse effects. If you read the PDR (Physician's Desk Reference) you will find most effective drugs also have side effects and sometime people die taking them. Yet the same medications save millions of lives every week.

    It is that greater good that needs to be weighed against any adverse effects. That does not mean we should kill 50 people to save the other 50, but our knowledge is a limiting factor where problems arise rather than malice on our part.

    I am sorry to say that there is no other side as virulent as the fundamentalist. Think about it - the otherside of terrorism?
  12. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    The Jerry Lewis Show is on.

    You gave us a good moment of humor 765. Really hilarous. So I'll keep the hilarious mood and give my views in the same deliriant way of reasoning.
    You have hearing and reading the fairy tales told by green elves. Warming has nothing to do with use of fuels, population growth or human activities. Warming and cooling has always had natural causes --and will remain in that state, at least until science and technology in the future give a way to actually control the clima.
    Hmm... that sounds good to me.
    It still sounds good to me (and billions of people who enjoy what science & tech has provided them.
    It gets better every minute. Keep doing it!
    Ooops! I knew there was something wrong. You goofed here.

    Fewer wars? Since 1933 the world has been in a state of small, localized wars. Just take a look at Africa and Southeast Asia. Then look at insurgent movements in Latin America. Filipines, Africa again, the Middle East, the Balcan area, all countries ending in "istan", etc., etc.

    Less death from war? The amount of people killed in wars during the 20th Century alone surpases the number of people killed in wars since God created the Universe. British RAF bombers (with a "little help from my friends" the USAF) burned to ashes 140,000 people in Dresden, Germany in just <b>ONE SINGLE</b> night. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki you did all by yourselves. Nice job! One plane, one bomb. What about the East Front in 1942-44? Stalingrad? Kiev? Heard about Hamburg or Frankfurt?

    Perhaps you meant: <B>"less American soldiers dead, less body-bags returning home"</B>. Then you are right. <B>Desert storm</B>. Nice. Few Allied soldiers dead. Doesn't matter if thousands of innocent people died in Bagdad. There are too many of them, anyway. They had been reproducing riotously. And those dark skins are hideous...

    Stable foreign relations? In view of "globalization" I wonder if there are foreign relations at all. Just a <B>Big World Cop</B> stepping in and out when he pleases. Or sending his buddies in the <b>Permanent Five</b> board for doing the dirty job for him...

    As a mathematician you really suck. Nowhere in the terms of your formula there is something related to warming.

    You are leaving out Tarot card readers, Hot-Dog franchises, McDonald, the Halley comet, Men In Black, UFOs, Mulder, and other more probable causes...

    Better transform them into Mediterranean Clubs. Use the existing premises. Build some swimming pools and tennis courts, golf lawns, etc. Recycle, don't destroy...

    You really are a destructive type, man. Easy said than done.
    Yes, they should fill it with horse dung that was going to be provided by the increase in horse-drawn carriages, according to the prophecies made in the Global 1900 report presented to the US president by environmentalist Elbert James in 1880, (he was Henry Jame's brother...). According to Elbert, in view of the population increase prophesized by Malthus in 1795, the need for horses that would draw carriages and other vehicles, the amount of horse dung resulting from this increase would fill the five times the Great Canyon. It seems nobody told him that Herr Benz had invented amechanical device called "the internal combustion engine" that would in time seclude horses to circus, race tracks and Hollywood movies.

    Then Elbert jumped onto another bandwagon: <b>energy conservation!</b> Back in 1880! A precursor... He envisioned a shortage of wax for candles and pushed forward a petition to the federal government for the creation of a Corp of Inspectors that would look into everybody's ears and collect wax! This is no joke. It is written down in history. At the same time he laughed loudly at the invention of a guy named Thomas A. Edison. <b>"Improbable speculations"</b>, said this stooge.

    What next? Because the fashion at the time was wearing beaver hats (in a David Crockett style) he launched a campaign with the help of <i>The New York Times</i> (who else?) claiming that the disappearnce of the beavers would result in devastating floods in America --because there would be no beavers to make the dams that controlled them. So many sensible and sincere kids and youngsters gathered at the Metropolitan Opera in New York to boo! Those rich gentlemen that wore the beaver hats. Brigitte Bardot and Greenpeace didn't invent anything... This enlightened Gaia Witness hadn't heard of of a technology named "portland cement" that was about to be used -succesfully- to build really good dams --and leave beavers chomping trunks in peace....

    Do you think we should have learned something from this? No way! In 1980 there was a second report of the same catastrophic dimension called <b>"Global 2000"</B>, presented by the Greens to President James Carter. It was an updatede version of the first one. Colaborators in the report were characters as Lester Brown, Paul Ehrlich, and the same Royal Court of Stooges. Listen: not one, <b>not a single one</b> prediction in the report turned out to be true --not for a million miles!
    No one left to cure your children when they got the measles. Not to mention a cancer.
    Revernd Malthus's dream come true! This is the environmentalist's paradise. But you are wrong about lifespans: ancient Romans, even after learning a lot from Hypocrates, had a lifespan of about 30 years.
    On the contrary. Science has never sent us into any problem that could not solve shortly afterwards. I wonder who's the layman who took us out of a problem. What problem? <b>Global Warming?</b> There is no problem at all. <b>Global Cooling?</b> Nobody can take us out of that problem.</B> <B>Ozone layer decrease?</B> There is not such a decrease.

    As I see it, the only problems we have are the increased gullibility of people, the incresing number of green organizations making fast bucks from the environmental scares they promote, the increasing number of politicians, and the decreasing level of scientific education in our schools.

    The Jerry Lewis Show is over. Stop laughing and go home.
  13. BatM Member At Large Registered Senior Member

    Of course there is. Extreme positions go both ways.

    The terms "we technologists" is another "broad brush". The solutions that we come up with, although perhaps highly ingenious, don't always take into account their full effects on issues outside the "specific problem or demand".

    Agreed. Reducing "adverse effects", though, can be done in two ways -- find better ways of doing it or stop doing it. Environmentalists take the same approach -- assess the environmental impact and either campaign for change or campaign to have it stopped. Just as "we technologists" may say that nuclear power can be handled, others (like the environmentalists) may ask "how many times do we have to fail before we decide it's too costly?" Different viewpoints...

    The person(s) who write the history determine whether they will be labelled "terrorist" or "patriot". The British subjects in Boston in 1776 would probably have labelled those who participated in the "Tea Party" as terrorists.

    Note, I in no way condone the actions of 9/11. The terrorists may have had (semi-)legitimate grievances against Israel and the U.S., but what they did to make their point was WAY over the edge.
  14. kmguru Staff Member

    There is no extreme position at the so called other side because it is silent for most part.

    So do the eco-terrorists - way over the edge....

    It is the classic statements by developed nations to developing nations: Dont do what we do, but do as we tell you to do.
  15. odin Registered Senior Member


    Great posts keep them coming!
  16. odin Registered Senior Member


    I am enjoying this keep going!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. BatM Member At Large Registered Senior Member

    Sometimes, perhaps, but please don't lump all environmentalists under the label "eco-terrorist". Also, even amongst some of the extreme cases, whether they should be truly labelled "ecological saviours" or "ecological terrorists" is something that history will have to determine.

    My view is that, if they believe they have an important enough issue, then they should protest in (almost!) any fashion they choose to make the point. I do not condone protests whose purpose is to get someone(s) killed (as in killing abortion doctors to save unborn kids) and I would rarely (if ever) condone protests that result in large scale destruction of property. However, the very nature of protesting is that you're going to "get in someone's face" to try to make your point. It has to be done appropriately, though, to make the point and not create a backlash against the protest.
  18. kmguru Staff Member

    Bottom line is, while you show pragmatism, most protesters take extreme positions to make their point, like our government's position on Marijuana vs alcohol/tobacco....

    Extreme positions are not limited to private groups...

    All I am saying is that we should do risk/benefit analysis and look for what is beneficial for all in the long run. There will always be some grey areas, but we could be pragmatic here too.

    It is the classic case of earth is cooling, earth is warming, PCB, Freon issues with so many misdirection....
  19. BatM Member At Large Registered Senior Member

    What makes you think that a risk/benefit analysis hasn't been done or isn't constantly being redone?? :bugeye:

    Ultimately, everyone assigns values to "risks" and "benefits" via their own internal compass. That's where democracy comes in and gives everyone a chance to vote on the issue. However, democracy also recognizes that today's vote may be right for today, but not for tomorrow and, so, allows for possible re-votes on an issue. When the results become well understood and generally agreed upon, then re-votes become less frequent and harder to come by (as in voting to change the Constitution), but are still possible.

    The idea of "beneficial to all" is a very nebulous notion. You might think that the benefits of a new nuclear power plant outweigh the potential downsides because the downsides can be minimized. However, the people living next to it might have visions of Chernobyl dancing thru their heads. If, through your efforts, the nuclear plant goes in and nothing happens, then you look like a visionary. If something goes wrong...
  20. BatM Member At Large Registered Senior Member

    Re: The Jerry Lewis Show is on.

    True. As the population expands, more people find reasons to go to war (as opposed to people finding more reasons to go to war).

    Tradegies all, but it would appear that the population of the world after every war is greater than it was going into the war.

    How long did it take Edison's light bulb to (largely) replace the wax candle? What sort of "improbable speculation" would you make about the timeframe for the next innovation to replace fossil fuels?

Share This Page