Global Warming? Myth or Truth? - Who cares?

[weaver]

My concern is for my envoronment and my children's children's environment. What I don't care for or have a concern for is the general media outcry over 'Global Warming'. Any and all expectations towards this serious issue are blow - way - out of proportion of reality. But this is what sells the news and the marketing/advertising budgets that feed news cycles.

What do you mean, Shane?

Airborne pollutants are a problem - no questions from me regarding this. Acid Rain. Smog. These are obvious and things we can - observe with our own eyes -. The United States has done wonders in the past 30 years to reduce the SO2 pollutants that cause Acid Rain (according to the EPA 2005, reducing Acid Rain pollutants and events by over 90% since 1972.).

Smog is still a problem and it will remain a problem until our cars pump out cleaner air and our industries do the same. But still, in the past 30 years air-borne particulate pollutants from cars have been reduced -40%- and industrial airborne particulate pollution by 85%.

The average car gets 30% better gas mileage then it did in the 1970's. Sadly, we have nearly double the amount of cars on the highway which results in higher C02 pollution.

But why don't I care?

No - realistic - plan of action is proposed by any 'green organization'. Any and all plans to drastically reduce pollutants in the modernized world would result in a serious depression in our economies, reduction of services, and a general and very serious loss of quality of life. I'm a selfish American. I like my air conditioning. I like refrigerated foods. I like my Honda Accord that gets about 30MPG. I have no interest in seeing these things go away. And they will go away, if we were to sign on to treaties like Kyoto.

Additionally, if we WERE to commit economic suicide and jump on the current plans, the impact would be negated by a ever growing and ever more polluting Malaysia, China, and India. With almost 50% of the worlds population in these 3 countries, less regulated industries, more concern with economic growth then industrial pollutants - they are well on their way of doing DOUBLE the pollution that all of Europe, Canada, Australia, and the US can do.

So - what do you suggest, Shane?

Let the market continue to drive to cleaner and more efficient processes with a little kick-in-the-pants from our governments. Our government can help drive the car companies to increase fuel economy, promote ethanol production (which is only a modicum of value to pollutants, but has a much larger political effect), push nuclear energy, push the use of more hybrid vehicle development. Push for more organic farming, push for more biogenetic farming that needs less fertilizers to grow. But in the end, its up to - us - to want to buy the cool Hybrid vehicle, to vote with our pocketbooks, etc.

Al Gore says we dump 70 million tons (140,000,000,000 pounds) of atmospheric pollutants every - day - . This is an incredibly high number.. right?

What are we dumping today?

Daily dump rate is equal to .0000012% of the atmospheric total. Say this another way, 12/10,000,000 is the daily fraction in contrast to the total atmospheric content. Still don't understand this number?

To dump as much content, at our current rate of dumping, into the atmosphere to reach - 1% of the total atmospheric concentration will take 8,334 days or 22 years.

Obvious Question: "But haven't we been dumping for hundreds of years? Or atleast since the industrial revolution started in the early 1800's? "
Obvious Answer: "Absolutely - but the rate of dumping 100 years ago when the population was 1/5 of what it is today was less then 1% of our rate of polution today."

Next obvious question: "Isn't our rate of polution increasing exponentially and we will fill our atmosphere faster with these pollutants?"
Next obvious answer: "Absolutely.. but now for the next set of important numbers. "

Of th

[Raven]

Holy sh@t Weaver were you bored today?

I have to agree with some things you come out with though. China is busy opening 1 "coal" fired power station every WEEK.

What's the point of us (UK/US/Europe/Canada/Japan) all signing up to the Kyoto agreement to reduce pollutants when China, India and Malaysia stick to fingers up at everyone else?

On another point we (The UK) get a massive government subsidy if we build "zero carbon" houses now. However even with the subsidy given the average cost of these houses is still £40,000 ($75,000) MORE than the equivalent standard house.

I like global warming Summer here is getting hot and winter is getting warmer

Rob

[oZ-source]

China are part of the Big country which cause the Global Warming. And Its he Turth

[blackhawk777]

i heard that when our ozone laryer is gone, we all die.

[SupportWar]

[My KaTz NaMe Iz MiTeNz

[img]local://3360/BE8FEC71105345E9AC679C35C1F16EA6.jpg[/img]

[cpnichol]

The vast majority of climate scientists and those in related fields agree that the Earth is warming and that it is human activity that is responsible for this change.The evidence for man made climate change is overwhelming and has been repeatedly confirmed, the evidence against man made climate change is sparse and unable to withstand critical scrutiny. So I'm going to go with the vast majority of people who know about this kind of thing and who have the evidence on their side and say that global warming (more accurately climate change) is happening.

The recent IPCC report confirmed it for me, have a look at the summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fo...essment_Report

As for the economic impact of combatting climate change, yes it will cost money, but in the longer term it will save much more. According to the Stern report, a purely economic look at the impact of climate change commisioned by the UK government, combatting climate change could cost 1% of global GDP (gross domestic product) each year. Which is a lot of money, but the estimated costs would be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. And if you go for the worst case scenario considered in this report then that figure rises to 20%.

For the Stern report conclusions see - http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/...onclusions.pdf

Plus millions of people will die and millions more be forced from their homes. So if you think immigration is bad now just wait till heavily populated areas like Bangladesh become unable to support their population.

I understand the arguement about "why should we bother if China and others don't", but look at it another way, why is China going to bother if the US doesn't? It's great for them, the US gets all the abuse and pressure for not doing much about emmisions and they get none. If China was the only country not to be doing anything then the reast of the World could put some pressure on them. Unless the US starts doing something about climate change then there is no reason for anyone else to.

As far as I'm concerned climate change is happening, it is going to get worse and we should do our best to stop it happening for moral and financial reasons. But it looks like short term financial excuses and national interests are going to prevent us from doing anything.

I guess we are going to find out if it's a myth or truth. I hope it's a myth, I really do.

[Sturmbann]

something has to be done but in reality can anything be done? i do believe every effort must be made by governments such as the usa , china and europeans governments etc THE WHOLE WORLD... but im forever the pessimist and really cant see governments getting together as a whole and tackling climate change. not until climate changeis directly effecting people globallywill they change and even then, how? everything is based on fossil fuels, mixed with a lil nuclear power butfor agruements sake, lets say a cleaner, cheaperreplacement is found in place of fossil fuel, today. it would take years to impliment it through out the world, too much time.. what can we do untill we have a replacement? tax fuel? in the UK its already taxed like mad and its killing small busines who rely on transport. its making it hard for alot of average people to get to work via car.... jeez and im forgetting all the factories knockin out emissions like there is no 2morrow. . . i honestly feel it will get much worse before theres any chance of getting better.

im one of the few who believe in the peak oil phenominomoininom or whatever. its not about running out of oil, its not having enough to keep the economy running ,its worth researchin if u havent already.

oh joy and rapture

[Sturmbann]

[link=http://www.breathingearth.net/]http://www.breathingearth.net/[/link]

have any of you guys used StumbleUpon? thats where i just found the above link,it works with int explorer and im findin lots of random stuff i never really would have come across.

[Cranix]

No offense STurmbann, but that may have been one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. It's just some math cruncher with pictures. Not even very good pictures. I suppose people who enjoy trying to make themselves depressed over watching people die and see polution happen like it.

[Sturmbann]

not offended in the least bit m8 , it was a random webby i came across whilst playin with this StumbleUpon thing.

id rather not see the bad things in the world but they are there.. life on this planet is something that blows my mind each and everyday.

[Ancient-Admin]

uppose global warming is something we sgould be doing something about. Suppose their is no global warming. What damage would we do if we try to minimize global warming even if its not happening?

[XTR3M3]

What week is it? Is it the week where it happens naturally or is it man made this week? It is like coffee, this week it is bad for you, the next it is not. There is good evidence either direction and I am not going to get uptight about it until they can convince us it is happening for sure. Right now they haven't.

[fallen1]

ORIGINAL: Ancient Admin

uppose global warming is something we sgould be doing something about. Suppose their is no global warming. What damage would we do if we try to minimize global warming even if its not happening?

I think the worst damage would be done to.....the oil companies. I mean, just imagine how horrible it would be for those poor oil executives if their companies had to cut the golden parachutes and stop offering multi-million dollar severance packages to top execs when they get fired for massively screwing up.

[«ÊÇ»grasshopper]

Whether we like to admit it or not we are the problem (mankind that is) I don't know about you all but I am a little concerned. The biggest part of the problem is big business and the almighty buck. How do you approach a multibillion dollar company and tell them to cut back on their profits because they are polluting the earth and causing irreparable damage to the ecosystem?