Global Warming? Maybe Not?

[Warren]

I do my best not to leave a footprint.

That's why I drive everywhere in my 5.4 litre V8

[Warren]

Pretty sure that's the point. I see IMO or IMHO everywhere on this forum. But climate change, and whether or not we can do more damage to the planet than the planet itself, would be more of an informed understanding or belief than an opinion.

My point stems from listening to Dr Karl Kruszelnicki the other day on Triple J radio station. For those that don't know, Dr Karl is a bit of a national treasure. He clearly stated the recent figures of our ability to move earth, matching the natural forces of our environment. So while I am skeptical of many things stated in the media, climate change being one of them, scientific facts have been fairly undeniable for some time.

I would never use Kruszelcicki to support any argument to support global warming. He has repeatedly been caught out grossly exaggerating data to help float the new mother earth religion. And make no mistake, it is a religion.

It was only a handful of years ago that all the scientists agreed that we were headed to a new ice age.

Anyone who says that the science is settled is probably not a scientist.

Science should always be questioned and those who question it should never be ridiculed.

[Jeremy Festa]

I would never use Kruszelcicki to support any argument to support global warming. He has repeatedly been caught out grossly exaggerating data to help float the new mother earth religion. And make no mistake, it is a religion.

It was only a handful of years ago that all the scientists agreed that we were headed to a new ice age.

Anyone who says that the science is settled is probably not a scientist.

Science should always be questioned and those who question it should never be ridiculed.

Warren!?!? You and Rob at polar opposites? Come on!

And Dr Karl does in fact slip up all the time! He has a grueling live media, and educational, schedule. No one is perfect. The thing is, if he does exaggerate or make a mistake he is the first to apologize and it is never intentional as he is the nicest most genuine person ever! And is the author of 20-something of the most interesting books you will ever read.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Warren]

Warren!?!? You and Rob at polar opposites? Come on!

Actually I don't think I saw anywhere in his list where he said to erect a useless windmill in your yard and kill a few eagles while claiming to save the planet .

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeremy Festa]

Thought he was more of a solar panel guy.

In saying that though, I recall this being pretty bad http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10146135/Birdwatchers-see-rare-swift-killed-by-wind-turbine.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Warren]

Thought he was more of a solar panel guy.

In saying that though, I recall this being pretty bad http://.telegraph.co...nd-turbine.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That link doesn't seem to work Jeramie

[Orion21]

How can this be called science when it's almost exclusively about trying to "predict" what is going to happen using man made models that focus on man? And when the data about what happened is finally calculated it's ignored and the scientists who report the errors of the models are demonized and excommunicated? It's absolutely sounds more like religion or politics than true "science."

My whole issue is that government and those in a position to tax and control behavior have taken this cause and run with it. They have found yet another way to extend their reach and power over more and more people. Now if a behavior or product isn't green it might as well be taxed to keep people from doing or buying it. Does this remind anyone on this forum of anything else VERY close to our hearts? It's the same old story over, and over and over again. Those in power find something else we little people just can't understand properly and set up laws, regulations and taxes to force us to act the way they think we should. Do you all just not get the principal of it all?

Rob is right. If we all acted responsibly in our environment everything would be fine. Regulate the huge producers of pollution that hurt actual people, but leave us alone to make our own decisions. Again I say, do any of you even know where all of these tax revenues and green income sources go when received by your governments? I highly doubt they are going to clean up the planet. I would bet you they are going to pay for the unfunded social liabilities suffocating much of the developed world right now.

[Ginseng]

Jerocco,

Nicely stated. This thread is long on a lot of things but evidence-based assertions and circumspection are not two of them. Confirmation bias, among other biases, are.

Wilkey

[ptrthgr8]

Quite a few things there to pull you up on there, Greg, but just to zone in on one I feel qualified to respond to: 'how economics work' is exactly what drives green regulations and taxes, etc. - however, I think you might have confused the issue. The point is to make more expensive those products and services that don't conform to green regulations, thereby pricing them out of a cost-sensitive market.

I'm not talking about organic food and all that crap - eating a lettuce with slug slime all over it won't prevent your house from blowing away in a mega storm - but penalising and taxing major corporations for dumping chemicals in major rivers, belching out greenhouse gases, other nefarious practices that are surely yet to come to light, etc., etc. hits them where it hurts (or is aimed to).

I'm not going to comment on dark and vested interest parties who are seeing to pursue their agendas at no matter what consequence. They probably exist but are vulnerable to exposure.

Bear in mind that the companies that you buy from and who are charging more because they are being clobbered by green taxes are the guys who are deemed to be doing a 'bad thing'. That bad thing may not be as extreme as driving the planet to imminent environmental catastrophe, but the economic measures are targeted making these guys uneconomical besides their compliant competitors.

If it were only the Bad Guys that were being beaten down to help save the world from those pesky humans then I suppose I might see your point. But it's not. Those evil incandescent light bulbs must be banned because they kill the planet? And get replaced with CFLs that can kill children and pregnant women when the lamps shatter and release mercury? Oh, and never mind the added cost. Brilliant. And how about the Chevy Volt? Well, those need to be made in order to save the planet, of course. And, well, it should be subsidized by the taxpayer - doesn't matter that it's still a dud in terms of sales. But I'm all sorts of tickled pink to know that our tax dollars are subsidizing a car that nobody wants. Oh, and how about all those ethanol subsidies that have the net of effect of driving up food prices?

But as long as it's only the Bad Guys getting pinched. </facepalm>

[ptrthgr8]

Consider all these issues exclusively through the prism of (hypothetic) taxation is the most narrow-minded and selfish worldview that I can imagine…

You should check my previous post. Point #1 is the first thing I listed for a very specific reason. And it's not only about taxation, though taxation is an issue as well.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

[ptrthgr8]

Jokes aside, I could take or leave the other statements, even though amusing. But your number 2. point is naive at best.

We humans are masters of our domain. And, we just recently reached a point where we move more earth than all natural forces combined. Think mining, construction, agriculture etc in comparison to the natural environment, i.e. natural erosion, floods and the like.

If we can do that, we can change the climate.

Have a brief read through these docs as a start

http://www.geosociet...173-22-12-4.htm

http://www.nature.co...ws050307-2.html

Cheers,

Jeremy

Oh, I agree humans do stupid things to the planet. Take pheasant habitat here in North Dakota, for example. We're losing more and more of this habitat to farming each year. Because there's more money to be made in that. Pheasant populations this season (started in October, ends 5 January) are down ~30% per the ND Game & Fish dept. It's largely due to lost habitat and spring floods resulting in lower hatches. (And perhaps the spring floods would have had less of an impact if the habitat hadn't been destroyed?) I've only seen two pheasants out in the field this year - one was a leftover coyote lunch and the other was a young rooster I saw before the season started.

But when I say that the planet has done more damage to itself than mankind could ever hope to do, I'm not just looking at invasive farming, clearing the rain forests, etc. I'm also talking about volcanoes, shifting tectonic plates, naturally occurring wildfires, flooding, glaciers, etc. I guess I don't have any way to prove it, but just thinking about all the violent geologic activity that must have occurred over the last 4.5 billion years compared to mankind's very recent arrival, I have a very hard time believing that the planet hasn't done more to itself than we have done to it. (And all the asteroid and meteor strikes over that time have surely caused a lot of damage, too.)

The planet has been through so much already, yet it always manages to carry on. Humans may end up being responsible for their own demise or another massive meteor might snuff us out like the dinos. Either way the planet will spin on long after we're gone. But that's not to say I don't think we shouldn't try to take care of our land and water. I just don't think we need burdensome gov't regulation that's rife with grift and gov't collusion with their corporatist buddies to achieve those ends.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

[Guest rob]

That's all very true.... The earth has had a lot of violent activity in it's 4.5 billion years.

The thing is we as a species haven't been around that long, yet have effected significant change to the Earth, and the environment that we rely upon to exist. There's no doubt that significant natural events will always cause change far beyond what we could have caused - but the point remains, why would we knowingly vandalise what we (and our fellow living things) rely upon to exist?

The argument of saying that change happens naturally, so we can do what we like - It's a bit like an unhealthy person continuing to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day saying "oh we'll, we've got to die of something one day anyway".

[Jeremy Festa]

That link doesn't seem to work Jeramie

Apologies, I have massive thumbs and the iPhone screens are small. Cutting and pasting is a mission

Here it is --> http://www.telegraph...nd-turbine.html

Excerpt --> Around 40 people were watching the White-throated Needletail, the world's fastest flying bird, on the Isles of Harris when the tragedy happened.

Sightings of the bird have only been recorded eight times in the UK in nearly 170 years, most recently in 1991, prompting around 80 ornithologists to visit the island in the hope of catching a glimpse.

John Marchant, a project coordinator for the British Trust for Ornithology, visited the island on a specially-arranged trip with a group of other birdwatchers and witnessed the death.

The 62-year-old bird enthusiast said he travelled from Norfolk when he heard about the arrival of the bird, which had brown, blue and black bird plumage.

“We were absolutely over the moon and thrilled to see the bird. We watched it for nearly two hours. While we were watching it suddenly it was a bit close to the turbine and then the blades hit it,” he said.

[Jeremy Festa]

That's all very true.... The earth has had a lot of violent activity in it's 4.5 billion years.

The thing is we as a species haven't been around that long, yet have effected significant change to the Earth, and the environment that we rely upon to exist. There's no doubt that significant natural events will always cause change far beyond what we could have caused - but the point remains, why would we knowingly vandalise what we (and our fellow living things) rely upon to exist?

The argument of saying that change happens naturally, so we can do what we like - It's a bit like an unhealthy person continuing to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day saying "oh we'll, we've got to die of something one day anyway".

Solid point

[CdnLimitada]

I will say that I lean towards humans being part of the problem. I do agree that it is tough for anyone to be 100% in one way or the other as nobody "really" knows. Having said that...

"But when I say that the planet has done more damage to itself than mankind could ever hope to do, I'm not just looking at invasive farming, clearing the rain forests, etc. I'm also talking about volcanoes, shifting tectonic plates, naturally occurring wildfires, flooding, glaciers, etc." Sorry but that has to be one of the silliest points to the arguments of the "humans are not the problem" crowd. The earth is a living thing. It has some natural processes/intelligence to keep itself healthy (like fires, flooding, ect.). Comparing human pollution to that is just silly.

A close second in the race for silly is the argument that " I shouldn't have to pay extra for the sake of saving the earth". We all end up paying more. Have you ever looked at the cost of health care/sick care from the garbage we spew into the environment or the garbage food that people eat from processes trying to maximize yield? Ever think about what is going to be left for our great grandchildren? IMO, we are exactly where we are now globally, economic wise, with the same attitude.

There are usually some pretty intelligent debates on here and some knowledgeable people. Some of the comments and arguments in this thread are just baffling to me.

Rob has some wisdom here and I think he says it well (if I'm reading it correctly)... do the least amount of harm.

[Ryan]

Apologies, I have massive thumbs and the iPhone screens are small. Cutting and pasting is a mission

Here it is --> http://www.telegraph...nd-turbine.html

..

“We were absolutely over the moon and thrilled to see the bird. We watched it for nearly two hours. While we were watching it suddenly it was a bit close to the turbine and then the blades hit it,” he said..

I'm a bit sceptical of the birds and wind-turbines thing. It's a good story, especially when it's a rare bird. But when put into perspective those stories become a little less sexy.

There are estimates that a single skyscraper can kill 200 birds a day from flying into its glass. Upwards of 100 million birds a year in the US alone, dead from flying into glass.

More estimates that pet cats (also created by humans) account for 1 - 4 billion dead birds a year. In the US alone.

I'm not arguing that we should reconsider tall buildings or pet ownership, only that there are very few media stories regarding how we should take birds into consideration when owning cats or installing windows.

[Paul3]

If one is "baffled" by anothers point, asking for clarification usually keeps a debate more on the civil side than does calling an individuals point "silly" or lumping that person in with a "crowd".

[stukibuilt]

If one is "baffled" by anothers point, asking for clarification usually keeps a debate more on the civil side than does calling an individuals point "silly" or lumping that person in with a "crowd".

x2.

Sent from my mind using telekinesis and Tapatalk.

[ptrthgr8]

I will say that I lean towards humans being part of the problem. I do agree that it is tough for anyone to be 100% in one way or the other as nobody "really" knows. Having said that...

"But when I say that the planet has done more damage to itself than mankind could ever hope to do, I'm not just looking at invasive farming, clearing the rain forests, etc. I'm also talking about volcanoes, shifting tectonic plates, naturally occurring wildfires, flooding, glaciers, etc." Sorry but that has to be one of the silliest points to the arguments of the "humans are not the problem" crowd. The earth is a living thing. It has some natural processes/intelligence to keep itself healthy (like fires, flooding, ect.). Comparing human pollution to that is just silly.

How is it silly? I think you're actually sorta helping to make my point. There are some people out there who think they're actually trying to save the planet from mankind. As if mankind could actually do worse to the planet that it's already done to itself. That's my point entirely. I totally agree with you that comparing human pollution to destroying the world is completely silly.

A close second in the race for silly is the argument that " I shouldn't have to pay extra for the sake of saving the earth". We all end up paying more. Have you ever looked at the cost of health care/sick care from the garbage we spew into the environment or the garbage food that people eat from processes trying to maximize yield? Ever think about what is going to be left for our great grandchildren? IMO, we are exactly where we are now globally, economic wise, with the same attitude.

See my point above. The planet does not need to be saved by anyone. Sure, sure, mankind might not be doing itself any favors for long-term survivabilty... but that's not the same thing as saying mankind will destroy the planet.

There are usually some pretty intelligent debates on here and some knowledgeable people. Some of the comments and arguments in this thread are just baffling to me.

Hmm. Well, I'm intelligent enough to know that the planet isn't going to implode because of anything mankind might do. You seemed to agree with that a little bit above. So I'm not sure why you're baffled.

Rob has some wisdom here and I think he says it well (if I'm reading it correctly)... do the least amount of harm.

Well, no disagreement there. I've never stated anywhere that I go about my business in a manner that's designed to create maximum harm. Quite the opposite, actually. But I also recognize that it's not all altruism and noble designs that have given us the green movement. And that's hardly a silly notion.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

[ramon_cojones]

Always laughed at this topic, every time it's hot people scream global warming!!! LOL

Next it's going to be global cooling haha.

[CdnLimitada]

How is it silly? I think you're actually sorta helping to make my point. There are some people out there who think they're actually trying to save the planet from mankind. As if mankind could actually do worse to the planet that it's already done to itself. That's my point entirely. I totally agree with you that comparing human pollution to destroying the world is completely silly.

See my point above. The planet does not need to be saved by anyone. Sure, sure, mankind might not be doing itself any favors for long-term survivabilty... but that's not the same thing as saying mankind will destroy the planet.

Hmm. Well, I'm intelligent enough to know that the planet isn't going to implode because of anything mankind might do. You seemed to agree with that a little bit above. So I'm not sure why you're baffled.

Well, no disagreement there. I've never stated anywhere that I go about my business in a manner that's designed to create maximum harm. Quite the opposite, actually. But I also recognize that it's not all altruism and noble designs that have given us the green movement. And that's hardly a silly notion.

Cheers,

~ Greg ~

Sorry for the silly comments.

If I am reading your recent comments correctly, I wholeheartedly agree that in all likelihood the earth would do just great without mankind. If we killed ourselves from whatever means, the earth would repair itself and be fine in time. True. If this is your point then I am with you. My argument comes from how much harm do we need to do to alter the environment to kill ourselves?

Who would disagree that obsessive green movements for the sake of profit or ulterior motives is the right thing? Anything can be bastardized when it comes to something this big where trillions of dollars are at stake. The green movement certainly is. I think that most people would say that big oil and all large energy groups are not going to be accused of being altruistic or pure.

For me it boils down to who actually knows the full extent of the harm people have on the planet? The answer is no one (I am assuming we can agree on that). If that premise is true then why test it when it is not necessary? Because we can? Are there not ways to go about solving some of our problems without harming ourselves or the environment? Now this is almost certainly not going to happen so I do understand how "silly" or unrealistic it sounds. Just because it's unrealistic doesn't make it false.

My guess is that where most people (including us?) differ on this is that one side tends to over estimate damage and the other underestimate. It seems to me that meeting in the middle makes sense. Don't dramatically alter life as we know it but make reasonable steps towards the middle. I am not going to stop driving right now and take my wife and 3 kids on a bike or horse cart wherever we need to go. I also don't think building coal mines at a rate of 3-5/week around the world helps.

Cheers.

[Jeremy Festa]

I'm a bit sceptical of the birds and wind-turbines thing. It's a good story, especially when it's a rare bird. But when put into perspective those stories become a little less sexy.

Absolutely.

Don't take it out of context. Was just discussing with Warren that his comment on windmills killing eagles wasn't as full on as this recent event!

[Fuzz]

I've always been of the belief that for the time that mankind has existed on this earth, we have altered the environment. Over time, the impact we have made has increased. Eventually, if we are not careful, we will alter the environment to a point where it is no longer conducive to human life. Wiping out our species by destroying the environment we rely upon to survive isn't very bright.

Yes, there are natural phenomenon that the planet has created (earthquakes, floods, cyclones/typhoons, volcanoes, etc) that have made huge changes to the landscape. They too have made the environment non-conducive to human life in certain areas. Do we need to help the planet wipe us out?

Do we need regulation? Of course we do. Otherwise we would have wiped ourselves out long ago. Does that regulation need to be draconian. Of course not. But then again some people don't get the intent of the message. If we were all rational, thoughtful, and open-minded beings, then it wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately, we are not.

Mind you, I don't like having the "Save the Environment" message crammed down my throat any more than you do. Nor do I like the ever increasing regulations. However, it may be a necessary evil if we want to continue inhabiting this planet.

[Jeremy Festa]

I've always been of the belief that for the time that mankind has existed on this earth, we have altered the environment. Over time, the impact we have made has increased. Eventually, if we are not careful, we will alter the environment to a point where it is no longer conducive to human life. Wiping out our species by destroying the environment we rely upon to survive isn't very bright.

Yes, there are natural phenomenon that the planet has created (earthquakes, floods, cyclones/typhoons, volcanoes, etc) that have made huge changes to the landscape. They too have made the environment non-conducive to human life in certain areas. Do we need to help the planet wipe us out?

Do we need regulation? Of course we do. Otherwise we would have wiped ourselves out long ago. Does that regulation need to be draconian. Of course not. But then again some people don't get the intent of the message. If we were all rational, thoughtful, and open-minded beings, then it wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately, we are not.

Mind you, I don't like having the "Save the Environment" message crammed down my throat any more than you do. Nor do I like the ever increasing regulations. However, it may be a necessary evil if we want to continue inhabiting this planet.

Surprising how you ticked everything off right there.

Very well put indeed!

[CdnLimitada]

Really well put.

I've always been of the belief that for the time that mankind has existed on this earth, we have altered the environment. Over time, the impact we have made has increased. Eventually, if we are not careful, we will alter the environment to a point where it is no longer conducive to human life. Wiping out our species by destroying the environment we rely upon to survive isn't very bright.

Yes, there are natural phenomenon that the planet has created (earthquakes, floods, cyclones/typhoons, volcanoes, etc) that have made huge changes to the landscape. They too have made the environment non-conducive to human life in certain areas. Do we need to help the planet wipe us out?

Do we need regulation? Of course we do. Otherwise we would have wiped ourselves out long ago. Does that regulation need to be draconian. Of course not. But then again some people don't get the intent of the message. If we were all rational, thoughtful, and open-minded beings, then it wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately, we are not.

Mind you, I don't like having the "Save the Environment" message crammed down my throat any more than you do. Nor do I like the ever increasing regulations. However, it may be a necessary evil if we want to continue inhabiting this planet.