The Sun: The World Is Ending In Ten Years

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry, I should have stated my position more clearly. I do not believe Global Warming is a hoax either. My beliefs as to precisely how much humans are to blame for global warming and what our (the U.S. and the world) reaction should be also places me in the minority viewpoint, although I do not claim to be an expert on the subject.

Last edited by jimservo on 01 Feb 2007, 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sorry for the assumption. Have you read the link? I think you'll find it interesting.

Way back in college (can it be so long ago?) (yes), in logic class the immediate goal was to negate a sentence. Problem was that this is linguistic logic, and just as no one places the word "only" correctly (as in "You can only get a focus at your Ford dealer.") everyone placed the "not" incorrectly. You, except for me. I got marked down.
So up went my hand and after my exegesis the instructor took a poll of my classmates. I lost. To which I asked since when is logic a democratic process.
a majority of numbskulls is not worthy.
Even if they be PhDs.
Or Hollywood celebs.

Let me put it this way.

The idea that global warming will affect us in two years or somesuch amount of time IS bollucks, just a product of CNN and FOX to boost ratings and Gore wanting fame and fortune. Nature is much slower about removing bad tenants then you would think. The onset will be slow, the first sign was the extended hurricane season these past few years. Most of the actual science I read about global warming implies a much slower process. In a about two hundred years ocean fishing will be much more difficult thanks to zooplankton and algae loss. The ice caps will melt enough to raise the sea three inches (Still a very bad thing) The heat of summer will shorten the growing season cutting into the food supply to a degree.

Face it, man can claim to rule the Earth but in the end she rules us. Humans just play cards a her Poker table, she's the dealer and in the end the only the dealer wins in poker or any game of chance. The solutions arn't as bad as you think. Don't use paper or plastic, bring your own fabric bag to groceries and go get things from the store as they become necessary so it's not necessary to overbag or drive a giant SUV to carry all your crap. Walk more, (Bike or skate if speed is big for you) drive less. Get a fuel-efficient car or even better an electric car. Explore "clean coal" tech. It's cheap and we have a lot so making it clean would definitely help us out. Increase the number of solar plants and wind mills, slowly over a period of time.

It's not rocket science, it's not that hard and it can be done slowly.

END RANT

And then again, I just may go back to the classics. I am a firm believer in global cooling. and I think that the recent cold weather and crop failures in California, the freakish cold and snow in colorado, and Alaska demonstate this as factual.
In order to assist in warming the freezing place up - I plan to drive my pickup truck more.

One year of cold weather on the west coast of the united states isn't that big.

From what I've read it was caused by an unusual air stream dumping Arctic air, besides how do you account for the heatwave on the east coast?

OK then, here's an argument.

Suppose we all start doing things to lessen CO2. We all switch to electric cars, and so on. BUT each year another million Chinese buy their first motorbike, spewing CO2 all the more. Even if we cut back, won't their increase far outbalance anything we could do?? If another million Chinese add pollution, how could we cut back enough? And I don't believe for a moment that they'll co-operate ! !

They signed the Kyoto Protocol.

They have no choice but to comply.

I think that just about everyone but the U.S. signed the Kyoto protocol. It's really an embarrassment to the Americans...

No they don't. The PRC is not representative to anyone except those within the government. They can sign a treaty and violate it at will. They do not have environmentalist interest groups to deal with. Additionally the treaty provides wide exemptions to China that are not provided to the westernized democracies. What is the point of providing a dictatorship with such an economic advantage?



First off, there actually is an argument for not signing the treaty. Just because "most countries" (many of which do not have any intention of actually following it) signed it does not make it correct. Most countries apparently could care less in China invaded and annexed Taiwan but that doesn't mean the United States shouldn't be prepared to take action to prevent that.

The United States is not the only democracy not to sign the treaty. Japan, Australia, and Canada have decided not to become a part of it.

Also, European governments that did sign it are already failing to meet there own goals under Kyoto. How do proponents of the treaty propose forcing these countries to meet the goals without disrupting European economies?

Which makes me wonder what the punishment is for not meeting the goals.

"Bad Luxembourg! Bad! (No soup for you.)"

More about the Kyoto Protocol.....

My dad who is [still] a Republican and has worked in the power industry for some time actually had some interesting things to say about the Kyoto Protocol. Essentially, he said that the Kyoto Protocol had some unreasonable goals for the power industry, since it would have involved retrofitting a number of high-emission older power plants that are only online for a matter of hours each year during peak demand times. Furthermore, these older power plants are scheduled to go completely offline within a matter of years. So, basically he felt that retrofitting all of these older power plants that are obsolete and scheduled for closure was an unreasonable burden for the power industry, particularly because the money needed for such a project is earmarked for building new power plants which will emit less pollution than older retrofitted plants.

I could actually buy into that argument, but I don't know why the U.S. couldn't have adopted the Kyoto Protocol with a slight amendment to reflect that. I'm sure that's only one small piece of it though. My dad's not a CEO or anything like that - he's an engineer/project manager for when these power plants are built or modified. So he wouldn't have been the one to make "campaign contributions" to Bush to get him to back out of the Kyoto Protocol. I also suspect very strongly that the automotive industry has something to do with the reasons (particularly since Bush owns an oil company).

I don't think it's gonna work.

BTW, I thought this thread was going to be about the sun blowing up and the world ending in 10 years because of it.(darn)

You forget Americans are the devil and Bush is the Anti-Christ. If only we didn't exist, the world would be such a perfect place.

Save the planet, destroy the planet? What hubris!

Gobal Warming is just has no science fact in it. I don't believe in Gobal Warming because it's not science and it hasn't been proven. All in all it's just an educated hypothis