Global Warming: A Political Lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtopsfinn
Didn't NASA spend $38 million on a moon rover that had less parts than a Jeep... not a reliable source of information IMO :jointsmile:
But this is interesting... spraying the atmosphere to reduce global warming :thumbsup:
That's scary, although I missed where they implied it was being used to reverse global warming. What ever the reason, I don't like the idea of the government testing chemicals on an unknowing populace.
As to NASA, they are a huge waste of money. I'm not going to say they haven't come up with some very helpful inventions, but the amount of money they spend vs. the amount of success they have had is greatly disproportionate. These are the same people who made it to the moon, pated themselves on the back, and basically said, "thats enough for a half century."
Hell, we now have private companies entering into the space travel and exploration business. I'm anxious to see the things that come from the private sector, it is about time NASA had some competition.
Global Warming: A Political Lie.
Yeah sorry... maybe more appropriate for the Conspiracy forum, but since it's somewhat related I thought I'd share it anyways :jointsmile:
Here's the article connecting it: AP Newsbreak: Obama looks at climate engineering
Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.
John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.
"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."
Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.
Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."
At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.
Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously. The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program. The British parliament has also discussed the idea.
The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."
Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.
But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the airâ??making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggestedâ??could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said.
Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added.
Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxideâ??the chief human-caused greenhouse gasâ??out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Global Warming: A Political Lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtopsfinn
Yeah sorry... maybe more appropriate for the Conspiracy forum, but since it's somewhat related I thought I'd share it anyways :jointsmile:
Interesting read. Yes that is terrifying stuff, and it is why so many of us are so extreme in trying to enlighten people to the lies being fed to them. :(
I doubt it would be hard to sell this to a good portion of the population. This is what fear mongering does, it makes people so afraid of something that they are likely to go along with something else that could potentially be more harmful in order to end their fears.
I would not want to risk them fucking up our climate in the long run while trying to fix a mythical problem. When something isn't actually broken, don't try and fix it. I don't think these people are knowledgeable to predict the long term effects of these practices, or the potentially harmful side effects from the chemicals. It sounds like a drastic action for a problem that doesn't need fixing.
Not to mention, doesn't this go against what the "greenies" believe. If man actually got us into this mess, why would we trust him to release things into our atmosphere to fix it?
Global Warming: A Political Lie.
JaggedEdge, how do you account for atmospheric methane having risen 145% in the last century? Fossil fuel production is a documented cause of this, and the past century has seen a steady explosion in human fussil fuel consumption, but there couldn't be any kind of link, right?
There's plenty of evidence, if you didn't immediately begin thinking of how to contradict it and instead considered it for thirty seconds. Anything's "easily refutable" if you have the right bias
May I ask what motive institutions would have for fabricating such an uncomfortable problem that will be so expensive to remedy? The corporate giants don't exactly benefit from the idea that their practices are doing the earth great harm. The conservative/Republican strategy is to pretend that there is no problem, and the libertarians tend to side with them on this one. Typically I'm for the libertarian view, but this is probably the lamest and most irrational conspiracy theory ever devised.
JaggedEdge, you can scream "I AM RIGHT" to the rafters; doesn't make it so. This is far too complex an issue to simply be dismised...I also have perused the evidence and have found at least significant portions of it to be solid.
My point about a pre-emptive cleanse was that unless I grossly overestimate your cognitive faculties, you can't possibly believe that humans can continue their vicious rape of the earth and its natural resources without consequences cropping up sooner or later, even if they haven't already. The Native Americans analogy is a seriously patchy one, because there is very little similarity between strategic, partial pre-colonial deforestation by peoples who had at least a vestige of respect for the earth, and the debacle we see now by profit-hungry industries who don't give a fuck if the earth goes up in flames so long as they can get some kind of monopoly on the fire-hoses.
Global Warming: A Political Lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
JaggedEdge, how do you account for atmospheric methane having risen 145% in the last century? Fossil fuel production is a documented cause of this, and the past century has seen a steady explosion in human fussil fuel consumption, but there couldn't be any kind of link, right?
I have never argued we are not the reason for the increase in CO2, methane, and other pollutants and compounds into our atmosphere. There simply is no evidence it affects our climate.
Quote:
May I ask what motive institutions would have for fabricating such an uncomfortable problem that will be so expensive to remedy? The corporate giants don't exactly benefit from the idea that their practices are doing the earth great harm.
See above for Gores motivations. Others are in clean energy fields or own their own carbon credit companies. There are certainly people who want to benefit from the promotion of this pseudo-science. Most of these clean energy companies get government subsidies. They can actually loose money but continue to get paid.
Quote:
JaggedEdge, you can scream "I AM RIGHT" to the rafters; doesn't make it so. This is far too complex an issue to simply be dismised...I also have perused the evidence and have found at least significant portions of it to be solid.
I have been begging for y'all to produce this evidence, until one of you actually does I will continue to assume it is nonexistent.
Quote:
My point about a pre-emptive cleanse was that unless I grossly overestimate your cognitive faculties, you can't possibly believe that humans can continue their vicious rape of the earth and its natural resources without consequences cropping up sooner or later, even if they haven't already.
That is the strangest logic. If we have natural resources, why should we not take advantage of them? Yes, eventually oil will run out and we will adapt and switch to an alternative source.
I love "vicious rape of the earth" though. I love the graphic imagery you use to describe our mining and extracting natural resources.
The problem with your solution is that this debate isn't about mining minerals and deforestation. It is about global warming, and in particular CO2's effect on our climate. What we are talking about with your "cleanse" is the destruction of our modern way of earth in a drastic effort to prevent what could someday happen. Completely force people to unwillingly change because our climate fluctuates and isn't very stable. It is however reliable.
Quote:
The Native Americans analogy is a seriously patchy one...
Fair enough, you didn't like that analogy. Let's try another one, this time in regards to our thinking we can help the environment.
[align=center]"ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT FOREST FIRES."
[align=left]Most people felt Smokey Bear was a positive thing. He promoted responsibility,being respectful to the environment and not starting so many forest fires. Surely our intervention in this matter could not have any negative effects. We're saving millions of animals; their homes and lives. Unfortunately, as it turns out, fires are essential to the natural balance. Since people started putting out their fires and saving the forest, the forest has been becoming overly dense with growth, a lot of which is dead. This dead growth is highly flammable. Now, unlike in the past, when forest fires do occur, they tend to be far more intense. They now spread more easily from one tree to the next due to them being closer to each other. Where small fires would break out and only burn small portions of the forest, we now have major fires that last for weeks, if not months.
Turns out, forest fires were good. It was the natural order in which Mother Nature controls her minions in the forests. Where once they would be burned and later repopulated with new growth in small sections. We now have mass genocide of these trees.
I have to admit, it's actually kind of fun to use human violence to describe our treatment of nature...
The point is, we can't fully understand what all our actions will have on our environment. If their isn't solid evidence to support action, no action should be taken. This global warming fear mongering is causing stupid and potentially harmful solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.
[/align]
[/align]
Quote:
because there is very little similarity between strategic, partial pre-colonial deforestation by peoples who had at least a vestige of respect for the earth, and the debacle we see now by profit-hungry industries who don't give a fuck if the earth goes up in flames so long as they can get some kind of monopoly on the fire-hoses.
You act like we are vicious creatures who want nothing more than to destroy everything beautiful nature has to offer. You couldn't be more wrong. The vast majority of us love nature and it's creatures as much as anybody. We simply want to harness everything natures has to offer in a peaceful and responsible way. Our making our mark on this planet is not exactly destroying it as you would like us to believe. Sure there are things we should fix, but global warming crazies are taking the focus away from actual problems. I don't see how this is hard to understand.
Global Warming: A Political Lie.
Global Warming: A Political Lie.
To OP
Dude u said it urself, its too early to tell if we are having an impact, and odds are the byproducts hydrocarbons we burn and spew into the enviroment is going to fuck with it, and is in no way natural. Would you pipe car exause into your garden?... Perhaps they chose the least of the culprits in the whole mix, but more often then not CO2 is accompanied by shit loads of other bad stuff. Your belief that since we have natural resourses we should use them for unnatural things if fucking retarded, ignorant, and over looks the possible future concequences that you yourself have said is too early to tell. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Oh and as for proof CO2 and Temp are related, how about the fact plants are able to absorb higher amounts of CO2 at higher temps, and only at higher temps. Bam proven! CO2 lvls are related to temp levels.
Agreed that there are alternate motives behind the whole thing, Gore himself is invested in carbon credit companys and is going to be making mad coin from this.
Its a good idea in the sense that it will help nature, but its only going to line the pockets of the already rich.
And dude that shit about smokey the bear.. like come on... its about having a fire responsibly, common sense shit man. the fires still get started just as they have been for thousands of years, natural lightning.
Global Warming: A Political Lie.
JaggedEdge....Bombdig said it well--lightning has been causing forest fires for millenia and will continue to do so, providing, as you say, a healthy balance. Some dumbshit tossing his cigarette into dry leaves may be a little less natural and a little more harmful. I see the point you're trying to make, that deforestation and natural disasters are healthy and natural....true, when they are indeed natural or with, as in the native American example, the best interests of the forests at heart, or in moderation. The body needs fat, but I wouldn't recommend eating a stick of butter daily.
Your assertion that most people love and care about nature is both true and untrue. It is true in the sense that if you asked most people about nature they'd get a wistful look in their eye. If given the choice between the rabid consumption of cheap goods that hurt the environment, and something more costly or more inconvenient that is green, your average philistine will choose the former. And I very much doubt CEOs ponder the environmental consequences when they make a lucrative decision.
To be honest, I really do not care one way or the other whether our current activities are causing massive climate change. Either way, we could do to treat the earth with more respect, and the whole argument is basically irrelevent. Let's say it is, as you say, a political lie....so? Does that mean have fun, pollute? Common sense (which, as Voltaire tells us, is not so common) tells me that being nice to the earth is a good idea. Even if climate change isn't an issue (though I still believe it is--I don't have the evidence on hand, but I have read it), our current practices bode ill for the future, considering how we have limited resources and habitats for our species. Your argument on human-caused climate change may indeed have some merit to it, but your argument that we are not harming the planet is ridiculous. If you're all about the evidence, I'm sure a little research (and not from everything'sfineit'sallaconspiracy.org), will yield some disturbing results. So, this is a non-issue.
Global Warming: A Political Lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt
JaggedEdge....Bombdig said it well--lightning has been causing forest fires for millenia and will continue to do so, providing, as you say, a healthy balance. Some dumbshit tossing his cigarette into dry leaves may be a little less natural and a little more harmful.
No, the point is man made forest fires have become an intricate part of the natural order as well. The forest are so thick that when lightning does cause a forest fire, it spreads more easily from one tree to the next destroying larger portions of forest and homes in the process. Now they are having to do control burns in the west in order to try and thin the forests out, sometimes they get out of control though, again due to the vast numbers of dry trees and brush, reeking havoc on the countryside.
They failed to see that simply preventing fires wasn't good enough. If they wanted to actually prevent fires, they should have had the foresight to do control burns in strategic areas. Instead they adopted an overly simplistic view that fire was harmful to nature. Instead of managing fires, they tried to reduce the number of fires started, which they succeeded in doing, only to cause more problems now!
As for the rest of what you have said, I'm done discussing it. I have asked for statistics, evidence, and support from several different members and every single one of you have failed to provide it.
Simply saying they may be right and it won't cause any harm to go green is not a valid argument. Of course people oppose paying higher prices for inferior products due to this irrational fear we are destroying our planet.
Take those new light bulbs for instance:
They aren't nearly bright enough, do not last as long as advertised, and the warning label says to evacuate the house if the fucking thing breaks. So, no, people don't want to substitute good products for crappy ones simply because of fear mongering!
Global Warming: A Political Lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bombdig
To OP
Oh and as for proof CO2 and Temp are related, how about the fact plants are able to absorb higher amounts of CO2 at higher temps, and only at higher temps. Bam proven! CO2 lvls are related to temp levels.
Wouldn't that suggest our planet is self-regulating and self-healing? If higher temperatures are caused by increased CO2 and plants absorb more CO2 at higher temperatures, wouldn't that mean better ecological growth and a balancing act being preformed by mother nature. If they are absorbing more CO2, that means they are releasing more oxygen, and last I checked, oxygen was good for us. Also, if they were absorbing the excess CO2 would that not in itself stabilize the temperature?
So basically you are saying. "Perhaps the global warming nuts are right and we are causing it, but we don't need to change anything because nature is handling it for us."
I can live with that.
