Worried about Global Cooling...

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Dan02

You're over simplifying, what would be the effects on nations around the world who rely on oil revenues right now? not to mention Alberta. The world relies on oil right now because there is NO viable alternative.

Actually I think you're oversimplifying. He didn't say reduce oil consumption to zero tomorrow. Probably more along the lines of tax oil, encourage green power, tax emissions, etc. You can still burn fossil fuels... it should just cost more (encouraging you to use less).

[Matata]

Hallelejuh Lanny.

With so much research being done and the invested interest of the wealthiest corporations in the world, OF COURSE there is going to be conflicting data. There will never be a time that all the science and reports agree, but nitpicking a handfull of facts is hardly a valid counter-point to the climate change argument

[Matata]

I'm well aware that I'm oversimplifying. It would take a life-time of research and thousands of reports to not have a simplified opinion about this issue.

"If we can't let kids work in coal mines, how are their families going to pay the bills?" - I'd say that whole scenario worked out the right way. Sure it cost time and money, but that time and money become new technologies that increased the quality of life for everyone in our society.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Matata

I'm well aware that I'm oversimplifying. It would take a life-time of research and thousands of reports to not have a simplified opinion about this issue.

"If we can't let kids work in coal mines, how are their families going to pay the bills?" - I'd say that whole scenario worked out the right way. Sure it cost time and money, but that time and money become new technologies that increased the quality of life for everyone in our society.

It sounds like you're under the impression that to become more green = the immediate shutdown of the fossil fuels industry. That isn't what is being proposed by (rational) environmentalists. Try to imagine it's not a black and white issue. You can produce environmental legislation that puts us on the right path but doesn't put the world population out of work... there is room for middle ground.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Dan02

You're over simplifying, what would be the effects on nations around the world who rely on oil revenues right now? not to mention Alberta. The world relies on oil right now because there is NO viable alternative.

There are viable alternatives. Electricity for one. We can do almost everything with electricity that we can with gasoline. If we shift consumers to a electricity energy standard we can simplify our lives and clean up the environment at the same time. People would just have to adjust their expectations a little bit.

Also, not one scientist has said we have to stop using fossil fuels or petroleum products. Just the opposite actually. We would be changing the focus on how we use fossil fuels. Instead of using them in ultra-inefficient combustion engines to drive our cars, we would use them in high-efficient furnaces to generate electricity. We would use petroleum products to make the products that make the vehicles lighter and more efficient. The petroleum industry will change, but a greater focus will shift to petro-chemical production rather than fuel oil.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Matata

Lets break it down this way. If we take climate change as fact and treat it as such, but it turns out to be a hoax, we get the consolation prize of living on a healthier, cleaner planet (which would be nice, seeing as hundreds of thousands people die from pollution each year in China alone). If we don't take it seriously and it turns out to be true, we are eff'ed six ways till sunday.

I know what side of the coin I want to be on.

Some of the negatives are as follows:

Increased taxes(already starting)
Inflation
Loss of share in global markets
Loss of jobs

On your plus side you are incorrect. We will not produce a healthier, cleaner planet. What we don't produce here will be produced by China or India at a higher environmental cost. The number of deaths caused by pollution will steadily increase in these countries and our political leverage will decrease as we become more dependant. Every barrel of oil we save will be burnt in one of these countries.

A real time example of this can be found in B.C. Our mining industry could and should be leading the world. Instead it is nearly impossible to get a new mine up and running because of all the political intrigue. You need to spend millions on environmental studies before you can even apply to start mining. You have none profit organizations actively lobbying against you at every turn. You have to appease the native group/s who have claimed
that land as theirs. A change in government during this multi-year long procedure can squash the project and cause the loss of the investment. So instead of mining here they set up shop in South America or Africa where concern for the environment our the human lives affected is minuscule.

[Matata]

Wow, I really didn't mean to be a focal point on this argument, because it is so damn complicated and only a handful of ideas can get expressed in this medium.

I'm already fully aware of all counterpoints that have been made to my arguments, the fact remains this is a planetary crisis and that there is no such thing as a 'black and white' issue.

There is a myriad of complications involved in improving the way 'we' treat our planet, but to point to one of these complications and say 'thats it, its 100% impossible to fix things or prove anything wrong is happening' is simple reactionary thinking that has no constructive value.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Actually I think you're oversimplifying. He didn't say reduce oil consumption to zero tomorrow. Probably more along the lines of tax oil, encourage green power, tax emissions, etc. You can still burn fossil fuels... it should just cost more (encouraging you to use less).

The gas price has already gone through the roof....and people are still using it.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Some of the negatives are as follows:

Increased taxes(already starting)

Environmentalism = higher taxes? Maybe as an incentive to get the hell off of one standard and on to the next. Drive a big gas guzzling poluting car, and you pay big taxes. Drive a small eco-friendly bio-diesel or electric car and pay fewer taxes. It's all about choice.

Inflation

How is being environmentally conscious increasing inflation? That's scare mongering at its worst.

Loss of share in global markets

Again, how so. If North America makes the commitment to cleaning up our act, and develop the technologies that place us at the forefront, how do we lose share in global markets? We don't. We become leaders in global markets.

Loss of jobs

Again, how do we lose jobs by being environmentally aware? Oh, someone used a florescent bulb, there go 10 jobs to Asia. More scare mongering. Again, if we prove to be world leaders in finding new and innovative ways to be energy efficient, the world will be forced to adopt the standards we set. Sadly, it is China and Japan that are pressing forward and making efforts to be leaders in this regard. If we don't act quickly, our competitive advantage will be gone before we take the opportunity to exploit it.

On your plus side you are incorrect. We will not produce a healthier, cleaner planet. What we don't produce here will be produced by China or India at a higher environmental cost. The number of deaths caused by pollution will steadily increase in these countries and our political leverage will decrease as we become more dependant. Every barrel of oil we save will be burnt in one of these countries.

That's a fallacy. China is working very hard on finding ways to meet their energy needs. They are also working very hard to clean up their environment because they know the situation they find themselves. They have built an eco-town (pop. 500,000) that will be self-sufficient with renewable energy and feature emission free transportation (the Chinese have an excellent electric vehicle production plant). They are currently building the largest damn project in the world to suppliment their power grid. They are also looking to nuclear for a source of clean power. The Chinese recognize the impact they can have on the environment and are being proactive in doing their part.

A real time example of this can be found in B.C. Our mining industry could and should be leading the world. Instead it is nearly impossible to get a new mine up and running because of all the political intrigue. You need to spend millions on environmental studies before you can even apply to start mining. You have none profit organizations actively lobbying against you at every turn. You have to appease the native group/s who have claimed that land as theirs. A change in government during this multi-year long procedure can squash the project and cause the loss of the investment. So instead of mining here they set up shop in South America or Africa where concern for the environment our the human lives affected is minuscule.

Damn those tree huggers! Who wants a beautiful country side when you can let the mines come in and make it look like this:



You can thank the tree huggers, because if you did move forward with mines like this your taxes would have to go up to replace every licence plate on every car, because that certainly isn't "Beautiful British Columbia".

[jolinar of malkshor]

Bitch bitch bitch.......humans are the only cause of global warming, we should feel so bad because there are mines.

Ok people time to turn of the electricity and go back the the stone age because human development is pure evil.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Bitch bitch bitch.......humans are the only cause of global warming, we should feel so bad because there are mines.

Ok people time to turn of the electricity and go back the the stone age because human development is pure evil.

Ah yes, the old "back to the stone age". Didn't see that one coming.

You don't really think the only two choices are "keep going exactly as we are" and "turn off the electricity", do you? I know you said it, but I'm sure you don't really believe it.

Anyway, this is kind of nifty.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/07/j...-power-arrays/

JAXA's plan is to eventually launch a constellation of solar satellites, each beaming power to a 1.8-mile wide receiving station that'll produce 1 gigawatt of electricity and power 500,000 homes.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

The gas price has already gone through the roof....and people are still using it.

I think you'll find as gas prices keep going up (due to scarcity or regulations, take your pick) people will a) drive less, b) buy more fuel efficient cars, or c) buy cars that don't run on gas. It doesn't happen over night, it takes a long time. There used to be lead in gas, now there's not... things can change, but it takes a while to gain momentum.

I don't think gas is really that expensive... it's worse in Europe and they don't seem to be revolting against prices. It's not like people aren't getting to work or cancelling vacations due to the price.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ah yes, the old "back to the stone age". Didn't see that one coming.

You don't really think the only two choices are "keep going exactly as we are" and "turn off the electricity", do you? I know you said it, but I'm sure you don't really believe it.

That's generally the rebuttal I encounter... to embrace environmentalism is to scorn 'good living', you can't have one without the other (apparently).

[HOZ]

Funny you should bring up NASA, since it was NASA's own James Hansen who finally was fed up with politicians rewriting scientific fact and blew the whistle. The science is in, the majority of the world supports it, its only a disinformation campaign that clouds the issue in North America.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...es-hansen.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1415985.shtml

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17926941

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/sc...erland&emc=rss

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021001766.html

Oh, and here's the latest on what is going on, including some statements by preeminent scientist as well as what is happening in Antarctica. Oh look, its just the OPPOSITE to what you suggest in this post. Gee, go figure.

Lanny I always get a kick out of you trying to look like an expert about things you know little about. I am on the opposite side of the argument? Damn! Hence I don't agree with him and his hysteria? Lanny if the science is in why do they keep studying? Oh, ya.....that is what scientists do. They make a THEORY and then continuously test that theory on data and occasionally they catch......(see below)

Hansen said the mistake occurred because NASA scientists thought some readings they used in determining the average annual temperature after the year 2000 had been adjusted, when they had not been.

Darn it! A mistake? Guess we just have to keep on testing!

Here Lanny a science webpage. Not a hyped up, news torqued article from a newspaper. CO2 Science
The American Geophysical Union's Official Position on Global Warming: It is a climate-alarmist document rife with fantasies derived from a number of logical fallacies that promotes political actions not supported by real-world evidence

Here is an a bit from a Science article on Hansen's data. More detailed article here

This is something I know you will not understand or refuse to consider so this is for others who may read this.

Hansen may just be correct. But there will always be a debate. Science is NEVER IN hence we have .....

THE 2008 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE pdf

March 2 - March 4, 2008 New York City, U.S.A.
An international conference on climate change calling attention to widespread dissent to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis.


And those Antartica Cooling data too

the journal Science

I apologise as I only have a hard copy and couldn't find the article I want online so I will have to give you an USAToday link.

But new flow measurements for the Ross ice streams, using special satellite-based radars, indicate that movement of some of the ice streams has slowed or halted, allowing the ice to thicken, according to a paper in the Jan. 18 issue of the journal Science.

If the thickening is not merely part of some short-term fluctuation, it represents a reversal of the long retreat of the ice, say researchers Ian Joughin of the California Institute of Technology and Slawek Tulaczyk of the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Their finding comes less than a week after a separate paper in Nature reported that Antarctica's harsh desert valleys — long considered a bellwether for global climate change — have grown noticeably cooler since the mid-1980s.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Bitch bitch bitch.......humans are the only cause of global warming, we should feel so bad because there are mines.

Ok people time to turn of the electricity and go back the the stone age because human development is pure evil.

You do recognize I was poking fun at the whole mine issue brought up to cloud this discussion, right?

Also, you'll notice that I have repeately stated that we should go to an electricity standard for consumer purposes. But hey, if you want to go back to the stone age, so be it.

[Delthefunky]

Why can't we just strive to be a clean earth, if for nothing else, because it's the right thing to do?

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You can thank the tree huggers, because if you did move forward with mines like this your taxes would have to go up to replace every licence plate on every car, because that certainly isn't "Beautiful British Columbia".

and without mines like that we wouldn't have your supposedly super clean and all powerful electricity.

Do you honestly think we could replace all our cars, planes(don't ask me how) and ships(unless you want a nuclear reactor on each one) with electric vehicles?

Not to mention how unfeasible it is both economically and sensibly, but how much more electricity would we need to produce to run everything on power?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

Why can't we just strive to be a clean earth, if for nothing else, because it's the right thing to do?

This is not in debate. No sane person would disagree.

Though there are some people who earnestly believe that if you disagree with their truism that you are honestly a monster hellbent on Earth's distruction and should be jailed or otherwise silenced.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Lanny I always get a kick out of you trying to look like an expert about things you know little about. I am on the opposite side of the argument? Damn! Hence I don't agree with him and his hysteria? Lanny if the science is in why do they keep studying? Oh, ya.....that is what scientists do. They make a THEORY and then continuously test that theory on data and occasionally they catch......(see below)

Hansen said the mistake occurred because NASA scientists thought some readings they used in determining the average annual temperature after the year 2000 had been adjusted, when they had not been.

Darn it! A mistake? Guess we just have to keep on testing!

Here Lanny a science webpage. Not a hyped up, news torqued article from a newspaper. CO2 Science
The American Geophysical Union's Official Position on Global Warming: It is a climate-alarmist document rife with fantasies derived from a number of logical fallacies that promotes political actions not supported by real-world evidence

Here is an a bit from a Science article on Hansen's data. More detailed article here

This is something I know you will not understand or refuse to consider so this is for others who may read this.

Hansen may just be correct. But there will always be a debate. Science is NEVER IN hence we have .....

THE 2008 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE pdf

March 2 - March 4, 2008 New York City, U.S.A.
An international conference on climate change calling attention to widespread dissent to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis.


And those Antartica Cooling data too

the journal Science

I apologise as I only have a hard copy and couldn't find the article I want online so I will have to give you an USAToday link.

But new flow measurements for the Ross ice streams, using special satellite-based radars, indicate that movement of some of the ice streams has slowed or halted, allowing the ice to thicken, according to a paper in the Jan. 18 issue of the journal Science.

If the thickening is not merely part of some short-term fluctuation, it represents a reversal of the long retreat of the ice, say researchers Ian Joughin of the California Institute of Technology and Slawek Tulaczyk of the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Their finding comes less than a week after a separate paper in Nature reported that Antarctica's harsh desert valleys — long considered a bellwether for global climate change — have grown noticeably cooler since the mid-1980s.

Do you bother to source check ANY of the crap you post? Do you bother to check where these groups get their funding??? Jesus, in the age where anyone with $10 can register a domain and put up a website you have to be extremely careful the sources you use and what their history is.

You quote a conference established and sponsored by the Heartland Institute. The Hartland Institute is a lobby front for those who take on issues for their corporate benefactors. Heartland is more known for being a Tobacco industry lobbiest with direct ties to Phillip Morris. Their board of directors also features ties directly to big oil and the automotive industry. First a front for the tobacco industry and now a front for the oil industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...land_Institute

CO2science.org is an organization founded by the Keith Idso, who was a paid witness for the Western Fuels Association during a Minnesota Public Utilities commission hearing, is funded by Exxon Mobil.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24

You really know how to pick them.

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

Why can't we just strive to be a clean earth, if for nothing else, because it's the right thing to do?

Those that have it, don't want to give it up. They put it ahead of everything else, including their future, the future of their children, the future of the species, the well being of the ecosystem, etc.

So long as there is money invested in something, you'll never EVER hear the absolute truth about anything. I like to think of it as Darwinism for the Human race.