|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 07/22/2001 : 06:13:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Now as for consquences, moving away from fossil fuels would have consquences far less then staying with them, you should also know that history has consistantly shown that it costs far more to regulate and prevent environmental damage then it does to clean it up
Is this really what you meant to say?
What I worry about are the economic consequences of waiting too long on this issue. If this is a problem we are causing, the consequences are going to be severe.
I also feel that, regardless of what's up with global warming, polluting less is generally a good thing. It's hard to come up with a single instance of pollution being good unless I go back the 80's and quote Secretary of the Interior James Watt who claimed that trees polluted.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2001 : 14:35:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The sun has a much greater effect on temperature than you think. Then again, part of the global warming has to do with fossil fuels, but do not forget the activity of the sun as being a contributor.
However, fossil fuels are not the entire cause of global warming.
ljbrs
Perfection Is a State of Growth...
ice ages come and ice ages go, the sun pulsates, mass extinctions happen from time to time, we put lots of stuff in the air and are beginning to realize our collective activities are getting big enough to have an impact. as a species, i suspect we are better off by minimizing our contribution to changing the global environment.
stossel is pretty clearly a journalistic whore, playing to an ideological audience. sadly balanced and rational reporting on complex scientific issues is too often overcome with political concerns.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2001 : 07:19:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I did not mean that solar cycles were completely to blame for the solar warming. However, with solar cooling, in the Maunder Minimum, the sun most certainly had a great effect at a time when fossil fuels were unheard of. When the sun goes red giant in approximately 4 (or so) billion years, the sun will be the entire cause of the devastation (extreme global warming) which will then occur. The sun is a mild pulsating star right now which means that the temperatures will vary because of that (regardless of fossil fuels additional contribution). The sun has a much greater effect on temperature than you think. Then again, part of the global warming has to do with fossil fuels, but do not forget the activity of the sun as being a contributor.
I am not one of those people who is bashing the idea of fossil fuels as being a partial cause of global warming. However, fossil fuels are not the entire cause of global warming.
I agree.
quote:
Now as for consquences, moving away from fossil fuels would have consquences far less then staying with them, you should also know that history has consistantly shown that it costs far more to regulate and prevent environmental damage then it does to clean it up.
I think you meant to say that regulation and prevention cost LESS than clean-ups. I agree, but clean-ups aren't the only negative effect to be concerned about.
quote:
Actually in countries where global warming isn't as much of a poiltical issue and more a scientific issue the consenses is that it is occuring.
It's a political issue in every country, and claims to the contrary are silly.
quote:
Sunspot cycles do have an effect, but it is no where near as much as the denialists claim, most of it is to do with gases which is shown pretty clearly in computer models
It's nowhere near as little as you claim. We've posted links on other threads showing the correlation of warming/cooling periods with sunspot cycles.
And we've discussed the computer models. The ones you are talking about are the ones used by the IPCC. I'll summarize AGAIN: they used over 120 scenarios plugged into a computer model, the parameters of which have been questioned by those with the qualifications to do so. Only the two scenarios that assume the worst-case for all of the 12 variable factors in the models show the warming you are speaking of. And most importantly, the authors of the study admit that only one of the 12 factors is well understood--that one factor is greenhouse gases; all of the other factors are admittedly "Not understood" or "Poorly understood."
So the computer models you keep touting are questionable sytems crunching unpredictable variables and STILL they show your global warming in only two of the 120+ runs (I can't remember the exact number). This is NOT a good application of a study.
quote:
Now as for consquences, moving away from fossil fuels would have consquences far less then staying with them,
Define consequences and what you define as a serious consequence. Then demonstrate this.
quote:
As for economic arguments, forget them, the economy is not as important as the environment and is a far softer science.
There can be disagreements to both of these assertions. No, I'm not disagreeing; I treasure the environment, too, but you're throwing out generalities that have no real bearing on the argument. If this statement is absolutely true, then we should eliminate all economic interaction and therefore all technological innovation and application and sit in our hovels to watch the world go by. Humans are PART of the environment; we did not invent ourselves. If we are going to live at all then we will have some impact on the world around us; the point is to find the balance that allows for our continued existence in a manner most amenable to as many people as possible. You are contending that the balance has tipped too far in one direction; you may be right, but I believe your proposed solution risks tipping it too far in the other direction.
quote:
As for other planets, as far as I'm concerned if you want to prove me wrong about CO2 causing global warming your going to have to test it on another planet.
You're a skeptic, so you know this: you made the assertion about CO2. You prove it right.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
