AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: A Real "Inconvenient Truth"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Samuleson makes many good points. Regardless of the politics, regardless even to some of the economics, it's an engineering problem, and we don't have the technological solution yet. It's not likely we'll solve the problems, or be willing to pay all the prices for it politically, economically, etc.

He paints a grim picture. He's not arguing the science or arguing Al Gore head on; he seems to have looked down the road at solutions and can't find any practical ones that are likely to succeed.

Is there anybody on this forum who's willing to bicycle to work in the heat, cold, and rain? I did it by motorcycle, and you would say I was insane. How many of us even buy flourescent bulbs to replace Tom Edison's incandescent bulb?
Quote:Is there anybody on this forum who's willing to bicycle to work in the heat, cold, and rain? I did it by motorcycle, and you would say I was insane. How many of us even buy fluorescent bulbs to replace Tom Edison's incandescent bulb?

I like to ride my bike in to work when I can, but I have been in too many bicycle / automobile collisions to feel safe riding in inclement weather any more. I bought those fluorescent bulbs that replace incandescent bulbs for every lamp that could use them when I moved into my current place and haven't had to replace any since. It's not a matter of reduced energy usage, these things just last for a long time, the energy savings is just an added bonus in my book.

As to the whole global warming thing, I am not yet convinced that humans are contributing a significant amount to the average temperature. I don't see any reason to do anything special based on the bogeyman of global warming. I have no problem identifying and fixing sources of pollution in our water and air, because I like to breathe clean air and drink clean water, but using global warming as a scare tactic seems stupid to me. If it is ever proved to be a hoax, or even if people just realize that these guys are simply overzealous and overstating their case it will be that much harder to convince people of real problems that come up in the future. And if they finally do come up with real scientific evidence of global warming and a reasonable way to deal with it after that, it will be considerably harder to put forward the case for proper action.
Man-made global warming is junk science. Yes, the earth is heating up. The idea that humans (read: America) is responsible for it is total B.S. Oh, don't think that environmentalist would just make it all up for no reason? Think DDT.

What is the number 1 evil greenhouse gas? Think its CO2? Try again. Water vapor, that evil substance, accounts for over 90% of the greenhouse gas existing in the atmosphere.

The earth has been warming since the last ice age, and I'm pretty sure there weren't any evil capitalist countries around back then. The recent increase in temperature, that everyone says points to humans is easily explained. Three things are going on of particular interest. The sun is burning hotter (it is cyclic), the magnetic field is slightly reduced, and our skies are getting clearer by the year.

When the sun burns hotter, everything around it warms up. (duh). When the magnetic field weakens, we are less protected from the UV rays from the sun; therefore, we warm up. With our skies cleaner, the effect called 'global dimming' is diminished. More light makes it to the surface of the earth = warmer earth.

Global warming isn't about the environment. It is about anti-capitalists trying to destroy the powerful capitalist nations by shaming them to death. Then, feeling guilty, they enact legislation that cripples their economies (look recently at Europe's airline taxes and Kyoto). Finally, socialists can be more competitive.
Since we know the earth was packed in ice once and became as it is once WITHOUT mankind,it seems logical that tiny changes even if caused by us(which I think is false myself) are not terribly meaningful.

Even if I'm wrong,what difference does it make,we cannot change the alleged problem without returning to the stone age. It isn't going to happen,not even the most environmentally conscious human in the west is willing to live like some Ethiopian tribes do(close to the way Abraham and Issac lived,I saw a documentary).

So,what's all the fuss about,Gore isn't going to live like a caveman,is anyone else?
Perhaps it's like asking us to live without war, without government, or without electricity. We're spoiled.
Engineering solutions aside - that still only accounts for the man-made side of Global warming. One Mt. Pituba, or increase in sun-spot activity might upend the best laid plans of mice and men.

Another Gorish fallacy is that if engineering advances are made and if righteous advanced engineering cultures act green, then things can get better. I think that if such leaders lose their lead by overemphasizing non-productive self-restrictive ideals, then the unencumbered will just get a bigger slice of the pie, and nullify any savings in emissions made by the naive.

At the end of the day,nothing will be done even if the environmental nuts were 100% accurate. It's a waste of everyone's time since this is true. It would cause us to return to the 19th century to do what it owuld take.


It's easy to do without war,just go ahead and hand yourself over to the nearest Islamic fundamentalist that desires your murder in the south over there. That's what no war will eventually mean to everyone but the Islamic fundy. I guess they'd end up eating each other once all of us were dead.