billvon 2,427 #51 May 27, 2004 >What's your beef with the Matrix, the human = coppertop thing? Basic thermo. People require energy to remain living; they do not generate more than they take in. Quite the opposite. The matrix would need a massive power plant to provide life support for all those people. >Gattaca (1997) was a good movie, but it was based far more than 3-4 >years in the future. It was more like 15-20 years in the future. I'd guess 10, but my point there was that it was based on a technology (genetic mapping) that is currently being used for some of the same purposes as in the movies (i.e. looking for people who are at high risk for colon cancer or heart attacks.) It was clearly a commentary on the risks and benefits of currently existing science. In that way, it was very much in the same realm as "the day after tomorrow" if the movie is as you described it (I haven't seen it.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdweller 0 #52 May 27, 2004 How freakin' true. What was it, about 110million people voted in the last presidetial election. And 65 million voted on American Idol. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Actually there were 65 million votes, but that doesn't mean there were 65 million voters, where as around 110 million votes in the presidential election represents around 110 million voters. Still you do make a good point------------------------------------------------------ "From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #53 May 27, 2004 I'm not going to argue with most what you said. Most of it gels with what I have read, and I don't have time to argue with the rest. The Earth is a very dynamic place, not some hunk of rock for us to live on. QuoteThere have been several periods in earth's history where climate change has happened very abruptly, causing mass extinctions. So what are you saying, that the dinosaurs owned too many gas guzzling SUVs and polluted too much? This has ben my whole point. The surface of the earth is a changing place. It is beyond egotistical to think we can have a major effect on it is so short a time (not including nuclear winter).witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #54 May 27, 2004 >So what are you saying, that the dinosaurs owned too many gas guzzling >SUVs and polluted too much? Uh, no. To take one example - green algae 'farted' so much oxygen that the world turned from a planet with a methane reducing atmosphere to an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere. A pretty major change for little algae farts eh? > It is beyond egotistical to think we can have a major effect on it is so > short a time (not including nuclear winter). Tiny algae did it. They are millions of times smaller than we are. And it may be egotistical, but we HAVE changed the environment. The Colorado River no longer reaches the sea; that's changed entire ecosystems throughout a continent. Las Vegas has gone from a desert to a more temperate climate. (Even outside irrigated areas - so much water transpires from lawns and pools that rainfall is going up.) But those are minor. A huge change is that we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by nearly 100%. That's over the whole planet - we've gone from historic levels as measured in ice cores (170-180 ppm) to 350ppm. We have come to learn that we are all part of the ecosystem. When we change our role in it, we change the rest of the system; you can't just change one thing. We're doing more than changing one thing right now. By all indications we are pushing as hard as we can on the environment, trying to put as much CO2 into the air as possible. What will that lead to? It's impossible to say for sure. But there are three possible outcomes - nothing at all will change (extremely unlikely) the changes won't be that bad, or the changes will be bad. The question becomes - do you want to take that risk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #55 May 27, 2004 QuoteQuote>As a scientist, I bristle when lies dressed up as "science" are >used to influence political discourse. He must have really hated Star Wars! Star Wars was used to influence political discourse? Just a neat little fact: about five years ago we launched a probe/satellite/big expensive camera thing. Why is this neat? It uses a principle from star wars...you remember the empire used "TIE" fighters? Well, they were supposed to work on firing ions one way to propel themselves the other. Guess what the probe/camera uses to propel itself? Quote Hate to tell you this, but ion engines were invented in the '40s Unfortunately it took decades before anyone could figure out way to make an effective one.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #56 May 27, 2004 QuoteHate to tell you this, but ion engines were invented in the '40s Yeah, invented, right....don't you mean they were found in the UFO wreckage at Roswell Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TypicalFish 0 #57 May 27, 2004 QuoteQuoteHate to tell you this, but ion engines were invented in the '40s Yeah, invented, right....don't you mean they were found in the UFO wreckage at Roswell Um, HELLO; didn't you watch "Independence Day?"... That was a documentary, you know... Like "Bowling For Columbine"..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #58 May 27, 2004 QuoteQuoteHate to tell you this, but ion engines were invented in the '40s Yeah, invented, right....don't you mean they were found in the UFO wreckage at Roswell Are you claiming the aliens didn't invent them?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #59 May 27, 2004 touche Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #60 May 28, 2004 "I have a new sign for HH to hang under Speakers Corner, above the description: "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." " Och aye, abandon hope, but don't abandon your sense of humour.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #61 May 28, 2004 "It is beyond egotistical to think we can have a major effect on it is so short a time (not including nuclear winter)." During the industrial revolution, about 200 years ago (a blink of an eye in planetary timescales), would it have been beyond egotistical to assume we could fly, we could travel at speeds in excess of 30 mph, that man could one day walk on the moon or explore other planets, that we could peer into the distant depths of space and marvel at distant galaxies, even that we could maintain real time conversations with just about anyone on the planet? As our technology advances, we must, absolutely must, keep check on its effects on our world, and the way we perceive it. Nobody will argue that our climate is not changing, what is up for grabs is the extent of that change, what the likely effects of that change will be, and whether or not we are having an influence upon it.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #62 May 28, 2004 Just to let y'all know what the official paper of Hollywood has to say on the subject. Variety Article -- not exactly a favorable review and they do seem to have a grip on reality. So, hopefully this will diffuse some folks delusional paranoia about Hollywood using this film as a political statement. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bill2 0 #63 May 29, 2004 Anyone thinking this movie is propaganda is not thinking rationally. It's a Memorial Day, beginning of summer, pop-corn flick. Nothing more. If Mark Gordon actually made the comment, it was -only- for the purpose of hyping the flick. Get real. _______________________________ Well, actually, several reviews have noted the distinct similarity between the Vice President in the movie and V.P. chaney. and Moveon.org has already mentioned it as "the movie the Bush administration doesn't want you to see!". so yes, in some ways it can be seen as propaganda, and I'm sure there will be lots of people who believe that this could happen. and others will think that while this extreme weather can't happen, we're going that way and it's the Bush administration's fault. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites damion75 0 #64 May 29, 2004 Quote I doubt many rational people will be swayed in their views of the possiblity of this happening in their life as they were by other science fiction disaster films such as "Godzilla", Armageddon" or "Plan Nine from Outer Space". You mean Armageddon wasn't real? I was sending charity donations to the orphans from that Hong Kong harbour scene and everything! *************** Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,427 #65 May 30, 2004 >Well, actually, several reviews have noted the distinct similarity > between the Vice President in the movie and V.P. chaney . . . Heck, that's nothing. In the Matrix, when the Architect is talking about "the varying grotesqueries of human nature" the video screens behind him show an atomic explosion, a picture of Hitler and a picture of George Bush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #66 May 30, 2004 QuoteOh, the plot. Global warming causes the Gulf Stream to shut down. Try and keep up... No wonder the world's in the state it's in! Don't worry. When your DZ's close down. there will be nice warm skydiving weather in South Africa. Bring your rig, we'll do some loads! tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,427 #67 June 13, 2004 Interesting. Just saw the movie. I didn't realize they had patterned the main character on Richard Alley, the scientist who has seen very rapid climate shifts over short periods (<10 years) in ice cores. Yet they never mentioned what he was doing with those ice cores, or what he learned from them. Also interesting that the article you posted, by Michaels, echoes a debate that Alley and John Christy have been having for years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #68 June 14, 2004 QuoteInteresting. Just saw the movie. I didn't realize they had patterned the main character on Richard Alley, the scientist who has seen very rapid climate shifts over short periods (<10 years) in ice cores. Yet they never mentioned what he was doing with those ice cores, or what he learned from them. Also interesting that the article you posted, by Michaels, echoes a debate that Alley and John Christy have been having for years. What the hell has Kirstie Alley been debating? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #69 June 14, 2004 QuoteBut those are minor. A huge change is that we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by nearly 100%. That's over the whole planet - we've gone from historic levels as measured in ice cores (170-180 ppm) to 350ppm. Isn't it hugely disingenuous to imply that "WE'VE" gone from historic levels to 350ppm? The cores you're talking about may reflect a change, but they don't necessarily establish whether "WE" are responsible in large or small part for those changes. QuoteWe have come to learn that we are all part of the ecosystem. When we change our role in it, we change the rest of the system; you can't just change one thing. What it seems like some people want us to do is arrest climatic change right where it is (or back a few steps) so that the globe neither warms nor cools, and this is folly. The earth has, historically, warmed and cooled to suit itself for billions of years, mankind or not. To suggest that we can somehow manage to preserve things ad infinitum with exactly the set of species we now have, exactly the climate we now have, and exactly the coastline we now have, is stupid and naive. QuoteWe're doing more than changing one thing right now. By all indications we are pushing as hard as we can on the environment, trying to put as much CO2 into the air as possible. WHAT??! That seems like a reckless statement. Surely if we were doing all we could to put as much CO2 into the air as possible, we'd all be going out each night and burning trash and dead leaves in barrels in our yards. We'd leave our cars running in the driveway while we slept... What kind of ridiculous statement is that, bill? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,427 #70 June 14, 2004 >Isn't it hugely disingenuous to imply that "WE'VE" gone from historic levels to 350ppm? Uh, no. We all live here on this planet. And when you look at a graph that compares our estimated CO2 emissions to the measured increase - they match pretty closely. It's like farting in a plane and smelling the stink a few seconds later; pretty clear who caused the problem, even if you don't want to admit it. >The earth has, historically, warmed and cooled to suit itself for >billions of years, mankind or not. To suggest that we can somehow > manage to preserve things ad infinitum with exactly the set of > species we now have, exactly the climate we now have, and exactly > the coastline we now have, is stupid and naive. Agreed. Things will continue to change. However, the opposite approach - to accelerate that change as quickly as possible with no regard for possible outcomes - is irresponsible and foolish. It's like someone who tracks into you in freefall and explains himself by saying "hey, you're gonna die someday! What's the problem?" >WHAT??! That seems like a reckless statement. Surely if we were > doing all we could to put as much CO2 into the air as possible, we'd > all be going out each night and burning trash and dead leaves in > barrels in our yards. Sorta inconvenient, ain't it? Especially if you have no dead leaves. I don't. Much easier to just leave the pool heater running and the pumps going. Most electricity in the US comes from coal, and there isn't a single energy source that puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than coal. And in any case - perhaps you've noticed a device called a barbeque. >We'd leave our cars running in the driveway while we slept... We would if gas wasn't so expensive and it didn't age the car; that way it would be toasty warm in winter or cool in the summer when we got in. There are even kits to do this! (start your car remotely and let it run) Heck, we'd have people arguing it was their god given right to do whatever they wanted with their cars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #71 June 14, 2004 "Sorta inconvenient, ain't it? Especially if you have no dead leaves. I don't. " I get loads of leaves, and shit loads of grass clippings, I mix these with other vegetable waste in my own composters. "It's like farting in a plane and smelling the stink a few seconds later; pretty clear who caused the problem, even if you don't want to admit it." I like that analogy.Can I compare the US's refusal to accept scientific opinion on climate change to some African countries' refusal to accept scientific opinion on AIDS/HIV? Its an extreme analogy, but it does show you what happens when we allow political leaders to drive public opinion of scientific theories. It is now a probable fact that you are more likely to be adversely affected by climate change than you are by terrorism. For example major flooding figures.. There were six major flood disasters in the 1950s, seven in the 1960s, eight in the 1970s, 18 in the 1980s and 26 in the 1990s http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3803649.stm-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #72 June 14, 2004 Quote>Isn't it hugely disingenuous to imply that "WE'VE" gone from historic levels to 350ppm? Uh, no. We all live here on this planet. And when you look at a graph that compares our estimated CO2 emissions to the measured increase - they match pretty closely. It's like farting in a plane and smelling the stink a few seconds later; pretty clear who caused the problem, even if you don't want to admit it. . Bill, you forget that only liberal's farts stink. Conservatives never cause problems like that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #73 June 15, 2004 Quote>Isn't it hugely disingenuous to imply that "WE'VE" gone from historic levels to 350ppm? Uh, no. We all live here on this planet. And when you look at a graph that compares our estimated CO2 emissions to the measured increase - they match pretty closely. It's like farting in a plane and smelling the stink a few seconds later; pretty clear who caused the problem, even if you don't want to admit it. My question, maybe poorly asked, is what guarantees that the rise from historic levels to the current 350ppm began only after we began our industrial activity? How are we sure that the rise did not begin outside of the influence of our industrialization? And in the first, say, 50-100 years of industrialization, were we really putting out such pollution? The earth's population was drastically lower than it's become in the last few decades. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #74 June 15, 2004 QuoteAgreed. Things will continue to change. However, the opposite approach - to accelerate that change as quickly as possible with no regard for possible outcomes - is irresponsible and foolish. It's like someone who tracks into you in freefall and explains himself by saying "hey, you're gonna die someday! What's the problem?" >WHAT??! That seems like a reckless statement. Surely if we were > doing all we could to put as much CO2 into the air as possible, we'd > all be going out each night and burning trash and dead leaves in > barrels in our yards. Sorta inconvenient, ain't it? Especially if you have no dead leaves. I don't. Much easier to just leave the pool heater running and the pumps going. Most electricity in the US comes from coal, and there isn't a single energy source that puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than coal. And in any case - perhaps you've noticed a device called a barbeque. Nope. Heard of a "barbeCue," though. Also am familiar with a Bar-B-Q... Quote>We'd leave our cars running in the driveway while we slept... We would if gas wasn't so expensive and it didn't age the car; that way it would be toasty warm in winter or cool in the summer when we got in. There are even kits to do this! (start your car remotely and let it run) Heck, we'd have people arguing it was their god given right to do whatever they wanted with their cars. Your replies to mine have become bizarrely unrealistic and dare I say kookoo. You're being earnest when you say "we would if gas wasn't so expensive..."?? As though anyone would really leave their cars running full time? In any case, the fact that we DON'T proves rather pointedly and effectively that we are NOT "doing everything we possibly can" to hasten climate change, as you claimed. I easily pointed out several other things we could be doing but aren't. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #75 June 15, 2004 Quote Isn't it hugely disingenuous to imply that "WE'VE" gone from historic levels to 350ppm? The cores you're talking about may reflect a change, but they don't necessarily establish whether "WE" are responsible in large or small part for those changes. Well, it's hardly a stretch when you consider the output, esp from cars, and that we've replaced lots of forests with cities or simple grazing ground. CO2 output increased, CO2 consumption reduced. Argue the effect of this if you wish, but you'll have a hard time disproving our impact. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
PhillyKev 0 #56 May 27, 2004 QuoteHate to tell you this, but ion engines were invented in the '40s Yeah, invented, right....don't you mean they were found in the UFO wreckage at Roswell Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #57 May 27, 2004 QuoteQuoteHate to tell you this, but ion engines were invented in the '40s Yeah, invented, right....don't you mean they were found in the UFO wreckage at Roswell Um, HELLO; didn't you watch "Independence Day?"... That was a documentary, you know... Like "Bowling For Columbine"..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #58 May 27, 2004 QuoteQuoteHate to tell you this, but ion engines were invented in the '40s Yeah, invented, right....don't you mean they were found in the UFO wreckage at Roswell Are you claiming the aliens didn't invent them?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #60 May 28, 2004 "I have a new sign for HH to hang under Speakers Corner, above the description: "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." " Och aye, abandon hope, but don't abandon your sense of humour.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #61 May 28, 2004 "It is beyond egotistical to think we can have a major effect on it is so short a time (not including nuclear winter)." During the industrial revolution, about 200 years ago (a blink of an eye in planetary timescales), would it have been beyond egotistical to assume we could fly, we could travel at speeds in excess of 30 mph, that man could one day walk on the moon or explore other planets, that we could peer into the distant depths of space and marvel at distant galaxies, even that we could maintain real time conversations with just about anyone on the planet? As our technology advances, we must, absolutely must, keep check on its effects on our world, and the way we perceive it. Nobody will argue that our climate is not changing, what is up for grabs is the extent of that change, what the likely effects of that change will be, and whether or not we are having an influence upon it.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #62 May 28, 2004 Just to let y'all know what the official paper of Hollywood has to say on the subject. Variety Article -- not exactly a favorable review and they do seem to have a grip on reality. So, hopefully this will diffuse some folks delusional paranoia about Hollywood using this film as a political statement. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bill2 0 #63 May 29, 2004 Anyone thinking this movie is propaganda is not thinking rationally. It's a Memorial Day, beginning of summer, pop-corn flick. Nothing more. If Mark Gordon actually made the comment, it was -only- for the purpose of hyping the flick. Get real. _______________________________ Well, actually, several reviews have noted the distinct similarity between the Vice President in the movie and V.P. chaney. and Moveon.org has already mentioned it as "the movie the Bush administration doesn't want you to see!". so yes, in some ways it can be seen as propaganda, and I'm sure there will be lots of people who believe that this could happen. and others will think that while this extreme weather can't happen, we're going that way and it's the Bush administration's fault. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
damion75 0 #64 May 29, 2004 Quote I doubt many rational people will be swayed in their views of the possiblity of this happening in their life as they were by other science fiction disaster films such as "Godzilla", Armageddon" or "Plan Nine from Outer Space". You mean Armageddon wasn't real? I was sending charity donations to the orphans from that Hong Kong harbour scene and everything! *************** Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #65 May 30, 2004 >Well, actually, several reviews have noted the distinct similarity > between the Vice President in the movie and V.P. chaney . . . Heck, that's nothing. In the Matrix, when the Architect is talking about "the varying grotesqueries of human nature" the video screens behind him show an atomic explosion, a picture of Hitler and a picture of George Bush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #66 May 30, 2004 QuoteOh, the plot. Global warming causes the Gulf Stream to shut down. Try and keep up... No wonder the world's in the state it's in! Don't worry. When your DZ's close down. there will be nice warm skydiving weather in South Africa. Bring your rig, we'll do some loads! tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #67 June 13, 2004 Interesting. Just saw the movie. I didn't realize they had patterned the main character on Richard Alley, the scientist who has seen very rapid climate shifts over short periods (<10 years) in ice cores. Yet they never mentioned what he was doing with those ice cores, or what he learned from them. Also interesting that the article you posted, by Michaels, echoes a debate that Alley and John Christy have been having for years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #68 June 14, 2004 QuoteInteresting. Just saw the movie. I didn't realize they had patterned the main character on Richard Alley, the scientist who has seen very rapid climate shifts over short periods (<10 years) in ice cores. Yet they never mentioned what he was doing with those ice cores, or what he learned from them. Also interesting that the article you posted, by Michaels, echoes a debate that Alley and John Christy have been having for years. What the hell has Kirstie Alley been debating? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #69 June 14, 2004 QuoteBut those are minor. A huge change is that we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by nearly 100%. That's over the whole planet - we've gone from historic levels as measured in ice cores (170-180 ppm) to 350ppm. Isn't it hugely disingenuous to imply that "WE'VE" gone from historic levels to 350ppm? The cores you're talking about may reflect a change, but they don't necessarily establish whether "WE" are responsible in large or small part for those changes. QuoteWe have come to learn that we are all part of the ecosystem. When we change our role in it, we change the rest of the system; you can't just change one thing. What it seems like some people want us to do is arrest climatic change right where it is (or back a few steps) so that the globe neither warms nor cools, and this is folly. The earth has, historically, warmed and cooled to suit itself for billions of years, mankind or not. To suggest that we can somehow manage to preserve things ad infinitum with exactly the set of species we now have, exactly the climate we now have, and exactly the coastline we now have, is stupid and naive. QuoteWe're doing more than changing one thing right now. By all indications we are pushing as hard as we can on the environment, trying to put as much CO2 into the air as possible. WHAT??! That seems like a reckless statement. Surely if we were doing all we could to put as much CO2 into the air as possible, we'd all be going out each night and burning trash and dead leaves in barrels in our yards. We'd leave our cars running in the driveway while we slept... What kind of ridiculous statement is that, bill? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #70 June 14, 2004 >Isn't it hugely disingenuous to imply that "WE'VE" gone from historic levels to 350ppm? Uh, no. We all live here on this planet. And when you look at a graph that compares our estimated CO2 emissions to the measured increase - they match pretty closely. It's like farting in a plane and smelling the stink a few seconds later; pretty clear who caused the problem, even if you don't want to admit it. >The earth has, historically, warmed and cooled to suit itself for >billions of years, mankind or not. To suggest that we can somehow > manage to preserve things ad infinitum with exactly the set of > species we now have, exactly the climate we now have, and exactly > the coastline we now have, is stupid and naive. Agreed. Things will continue to change. However, the opposite approach - to accelerate that change as quickly as possible with no regard for possible outcomes - is irresponsible and foolish. It's like someone who tracks into you in freefall and explains himself by saying "hey, you're gonna die someday! What's the problem?" >WHAT??! That seems like a reckless statement. Surely if we were > doing all we could to put as much CO2 into the air as possible, we'd > all be going out each night and burning trash and dead leaves in > barrels in our yards. Sorta inconvenient, ain't it? Especially if you have no dead leaves. I don't. Much easier to just leave the pool heater running and the pumps going. Most electricity in the US comes from coal, and there isn't a single energy source that puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than coal. And in any case - perhaps you've noticed a device called a barbeque. >We'd leave our cars running in the driveway while we slept... We would if gas wasn't so expensive and it didn't age the car; that way it would be toasty warm in winter or cool in the summer when we got in. There are even kits to do this! (start your car remotely and let it run) Heck, we'd have people arguing it was their god given right to do whatever they wanted with their cars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #71 June 14, 2004 "Sorta inconvenient, ain't it? Especially if you have no dead leaves. I don't. " I get loads of leaves, and shit loads of grass clippings, I mix these with other vegetable waste in my own composters. "It's like farting in a plane and smelling the stink a few seconds later; pretty clear who caused the problem, even if you don't want to admit it." I like that analogy.Can I compare the US's refusal to accept scientific opinion on climate change to some African countries' refusal to accept scientific opinion on AIDS/HIV? Its an extreme analogy, but it does show you what happens when we allow political leaders to drive public opinion of scientific theories. It is now a probable fact that you are more likely to be adversely affected by climate change than you are by terrorism. For example major flooding figures.. There were six major flood disasters in the 1950s, seven in the 1960s, eight in the 1970s, 18 in the 1980s and 26 in the 1990s http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3803649.stm-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #72 June 14, 2004 Quote>Isn't it hugely disingenuous to imply that "WE'VE" gone from historic levels to 350ppm? Uh, no. We all live here on this planet. And when you look at a graph that compares our estimated CO2 emissions to the measured increase - they match pretty closely. It's like farting in a plane and smelling the stink a few seconds later; pretty clear who caused the problem, even if you don't want to admit it. . Bill, you forget that only liberal's farts stink. Conservatives never cause problems like that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #73 June 15, 2004 Quote>Isn't it hugely disingenuous to imply that "WE'VE" gone from historic levels to 350ppm? Uh, no. We all live here on this planet. And when you look at a graph that compares our estimated CO2 emissions to the measured increase - they match pretty closely. It's like farting in a plane and smelling the stink a few seconds later; pretty clear who caused the problem, even if you don't want to admit it. My question, maybe poorly asked, is what guarantees that the rise from historic levels to the current 350ppm began only after we began our industrial activity? How are we sure that the rise did not begin outside of the influence of our industrialization? And in the first, say, 50-100 years of industrialization, were we really putting out such pollution? The earth's population was drastically lower than it's become in the last few decades. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #74 June 15, 2004 QuoteAgreed. Things will continue to change. However, the opposite approach - to accelerate that change as quickly as possible with no regard for possible outcomes - is irresponsible and foolish. It's like someone who tracks into you in freefall and explains himself by saying "hey, you're gonna die someday! What's the problem?" >WHAT??! That seems like a reckless statement. Surely if we were > doing all we could to put as much CO2 into the air as possible, we'd > all be going out each night and burning trash and dead leaves in > barrels in our yards. Sorta inconvenient, ain't it? Especially if you have no dead leaves. I don't. Much easier to just leave the pool heater running and the pumps going. Most electricity in the US comes from coal, and there isn't a single energy source that puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than coal. And in any case - perhaps you've noticed a device called a barbeque. Nope. Heard of a "barbeCue," though. Also am familiar with a Bar-B-Q... Quote>We'd leave our cars running in the driveway while we slept... We would if gas wasn't so expensive and it didn't age the car; that way it would be toasty warm in winter or cool in the summer when we got in. There are even kits to do this! (start your car remotely and let it run) Heck, we'd have people arguing it was their god given right to do whatever they wanted with their cars. Your replies to mine have become bizarrely unrealistic and dare I say kookoo. You're being earnest when you say "we would if gas wasn't so expensive..."?? As though anyone would really leave their cars running full time? In any case, the fact that we DON'T proves rather pointedly and effectively that we are NOT "doing everything we possibly can" to hasten climate change, as you claimed. I easily pointed out several other things we could be doing but aren't. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #75 June 15, 2004 Quote Isn't it hugely disingenuous to imply that "WE'VE" gone from historic levels to 350ppm? The cores you're talking about may reflect a change, but they don't necessarily establish whether "WE" are responsible in large or small part for those changes. Well, it's hardly a stretch when you consider the output, esp from cars, and that we've replaced lots of forests with cities or simple grazing ground. CO2 output increased, CO2 consumption reduced. Argue the effect of this if you wish, but you'll have a hard time disproving our impact. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
