quote: Late last year, for example, researchers analyzed data from Canadian and European satellites and found that the Greenland ice sheet is not only melting, but doing so faster and faster, with 53 cubic miles draining away into the sea last year alone, compared to 23 cubic miles in 1996.
One of the reasons the loss of the planet's ice cover is accelerating is that as the poles' bright white surface disappears it changes the relationship of the Earth and the sun. Polar ice is so reflective that 90 percent of the sunlight that strikes it simply bounces back into space, taking its energy with it. Ocean water does just the opposite, absorbing 90 percent of the light and heat it receives, meaning that each mile of ice that melts vanishes faster than the mile that preceded it.
There's a lot more than just that quote, the whole article has useful information in it.
Is anyone who wasn't convinced before convinced now? Polar ice is melting at ever increasing rates, from the looks of things, by 2100 most of the lower half of Florida could be under water, along with coastal New Jersey, half of Deleware and Maryland, and the coast of South Carolina.
To say nothing of the droughts, incredibly powerful storms like the one that ripped through Australia last week, forest fires, extinction of animals...all things that are starting to happen now, or already are happening. Increasingly, it's starting to look like the only people who really don't believe in some kind of global warming is the Bush Administration. Over 200 major US cities have agreed to cut their pollution, as well as a cooperative of nine northeast states agreeing to cut emissions. Not to mention the fact that California has always been ahead of the game.
From the way things are going, Republicans aren't going to do anything about global warming until they're rowing out of DC in canoes.
But what about the rest of you? The average American.For those among you that were doubters, has this new information, the new signs around the world of global warming, changed your minds?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. Keep trying. You should read the history of the world sometime. Climate and conditions change all the time -- sometimes very drastically. Earth remains alive and well.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems, though, that you are not disputing the fact of the change? Go back ten years, and people were not convinced even of that. Now it's "not our fault" and "won't affect us", isntead. We'll see.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
...I have to wonder, how the hell did this become a partisan issue? I've become fairly conservative myself on a number of issues, but the level of denial I've seen in most Republicans I've met is staggering, to say the least. I'm pro-business, too, but let's not toe the party line that closely.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Nope. Keep trying. You should read the history of the world sometime. Climate and conditions change all the time -- sometimes very drastically. Earth remains alive and well.
Read the history of the world? Sure, the planet earth is here, but wait, where are all the dinosaurs? and the sabertoothed tigers?
The planet might still be here, but that means absolutely nothing when it comes to the creatures that INHABIT the planet. And like KoM said, 10 years ago people denied that ANYTHING was happening. Now the line is that sure, it's happening, but it always happens, and it's not our fault and we can't stop it, so let's whistle a happy tune and keep on truckin'.
That doesn't strike you as a wee bit willfully ignorant and irresponsible?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occ. CO2 levels are at their highest point in at least 2 million years (and perhaps as much as 30+ million years) according to the latest data.
It may be that the earth survives, but there's pretty good reason to believe that our societies may not be there to enjoy it much longer.
Of course, all that heated up water should increase cloud cover, and there's a chance that the ocean currents will change and trip us into another ice age.
Either way, rapid global climate change is going to be a bad thing for human kind -- especially the more organized versions of it requiring a robust economy and relative freedom from large-scale natural disasters.
The real question is which of the various theories of global climate change is the most accurate. Are we nearing a tipping point in a chaotic boundary type situation, or are we setting a new equilibrium, or is gradualism the most likely alternative -- or something else.
Whichever, it's probably already too late to really do much about it, so we might as well just take bets and see what happens.
We probably have a few lifetimes before the changes become overwhelming from a societal perspective.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob makes a very good point that we may be at the point where it is too late to do anything about it. It's about like trying to stop a free-wheeling locomotive halfway down a slope. It would have been more practical to have stopped it before the downslope.
But what did we know then? It's just Mr. Toad's Wild Ride from here on out.
posted
There's a series of tipping points and balances that we reach with the climate. It's not ONE giant teeter totter waiting to tip, it's a series of teeter totters. Reversing the trend now could stop the ultimate big bad from happening, but it's probably too late to keep the status quo.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am disputing the change, actually. I guess I could have said "the climate changes all the time, and very drastically. This time, however, is not one of them." The so-called trends aren't enough to register on my pay attention meter.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:. . . it has taken years for the public perception of the problem to catch up with the warnings.
That lack of concern may have been just what big oil wanted.
quote:Pat Michaels is one of a handful of skeptics still downplaying the danger. But they are a tiny minority.
The vast majority of scientists have determined global warming to be a real threat. So why has it taken so long to convince Americans?
Misinformation Campaign
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Ross Gelbspan blames a 15-year misinformation campaign by the oil and coal industries.
"The point of this campaign was not necessarily to persuade the public that global warming isn't happening," Gelbspan said. "It was to persuade the public that there is this state of confusion."
A 1998 memo by the American Petroleum Institute said, "Victory will be achieved when … average citizens recognize uncertainties in climate science."
To redefine global warming as theory — not fact — the industry funded research by "friendly" scientists such as Michaels.
(The implication is made that Michaels was funded by big oil, but it's not stated outright. I wonder if he was or not.)
quote:The industry's influence even extends into the White House — where up until a few months ago a former oil industry lobbyist, Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, was one of the president's top environmental advisors, editing scientific reports to make global warming seem less threatening.
I have been on the fence, but I'm getting convinced. It seems that the scientists disputing that there is a problem are about as legitimate and as credible as the scientists promoting creation science.
I am becoming convinced that people in the oil industry are leading us into at least a small scale disaster--they hope that's all--because it's better to be rich in a damaged world than to be poor in a pristine one. After all, their heirs can simply buy houses in the less damaged areas. They gouge us in the present, making record profits while we struggle to pay ever-mounting gas prices, and while we also take the hit from second-effect increases--like increasing gas prices leading to increase in the prices of everyday products that are transported to us, such as groceries--and they are damaging our future.
I'm starting to believe that most of the people who are unconcerned about global climate change are liars or dupes.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a couple of issues with global warming. On the one hand I'm completely dumbfounded that the US government (and not any particular administration, either) could be so disconnected to what's happening to the Earth.
On the other hand, the Earth is in many ways a living thing, and we as inhabitants are just part of that same overall organism. The climate has shown itself capable of incredibly drastic changes, like the ice age, or catastophic volcanic eruptions that have global effects. Some forms of life survive, others simply die away, and the Earth, insofar as it is a living, changing planet, continues on its way.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I don't think anyone's saying that global warming is going to destroy the Earth. I think they're saying it'll make it much harder for HUMANS. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, undoubtedly. My point was that humans are part of the Earth, and eventually, we are going to die out.
I'm rather comfortable with the idea of humans being impermanent, espescially if we become impermanent after I'm dead. I'm not trying to say that I don't care about global warming or its consequences, or that something shouldn't be done about it, just that I find no reason to spend my life panicking about the human race's possible extinction if I'm already going to be dead when/if it happens. Besides, humans are very resourceful. Worldwide catastrophes may make it difficult, but not impossible for the human race to continue on.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's true. The earth will undoubtedly survive, and life on earth will also undoubtedly survive. Humans will also survive, since we have proven ourselves to be wildly adaptable. However, there are at least two serious problems posed by global warming:
1. Inundation of coastal cities. A huge percentage of world population lives near a coast, and if global warming causes ocean levels to rise, much or all of this population could be displaced. Ouch.
2. Carrying capacity. Much of the farmland is near (or in some cases even below) sea level. Global warming can cause rivers to burst levies, cause river deltas to become estuaries or even open ocean, and cause a signifacant proportion of food growing areas to become covered in water. This, in addition to other affects of climate change, is likely to significantly reduce the carrying capacity of the planet at a time when population growth is at it's highest point in history. It is quite possible that global warming resulting in a world which is unable to feed its human population. If you think starvation is a problem now, when it is caused by a poor distribution of resources, how do you imagine things will be when the resources are not only badly distributed, but also fundamentally insufficient?
People who accept that global warming exists but don't do anything about it because "this is a natural cycle" which "won't affect them" could be right - but if they manage to escape the effects, their children won't.
Since this is a sci-fi (among other things) author's forum, I'll put it this way. Read Octavia Butler's [u]Parable of the Sower[/u]. Then ask yourself, how would you like to live there?
David
Edit: Epictetus: Do you have children? Do you not care about their futures? How about your friends children? It seems like a very selfish attitude to not care about what will happen to the next generation, especially when our behavior is contributing to their problems. (And we're talking about something which is likely to be, if not our problem, then theirs, and not the problem of some distant future generation.)
Posts: 29 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, here's something to think about if you live in one of the areas predicted to be under water in a hundred years or so. I live in Florida. I likely won't be around in a hundred years, but my children conceivably could be, and their children likely will be. I own a house on what is currently some pretty prime real estate. After my wife and I are gone, it would be nice to think that our heirs would have something of value in this piece of property. If these projections are true, and we don't do anything about it, then sure, the human race will probably go on, but something I thought would be of value to my descendants now will not be. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess its just hard for me to accept global warming when scientists talk about CO2 levels being higher than they ever have in (insert X amount of time) have people been measuring CO2 levels world wide as recently as 80 years ago? How can they talk about 2 million years ago as if they have accurate date from then? I dunno maybe there is an accurate way that CO2 lvls can be measured since time immemorial I think if I at least understood how, and what the data was saying I would be more of a believer.
State of Fear by Michael Crichton is a fun book that deals with global warming. He cites TONS of books but I am not sure how credible the research is but at least it gives the skeptical side some weight other than "Big oil is funding them"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, one method by which we're able to determine CO2 levels from the past is by analyzing ice cores taken from the poles. I think, but could be wrong, that another method is examining the growth patterns in ancient wood.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, as Noemon mentioned, ice cores is one major way scientists can tell CO2 levels, since CO2 is trapped in the ice as it freezes (they can tell the age of the ice by carbon dating, which extrapolates the age of the sample from the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12).
It's also possible to determine CO2 levels from fossils. For example, this article explains how scientists found a fossil of an ancient lifeform similar to modern lifeforms. Because they knew how the modern equivalents processed CO2 and converted it into structural material, they could (assuming the ancient ancestor used a similar method) extrapolate the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the amount of C-12 and C-13 isotopes in the fossil.
My quick google search didn't find any specific examples, but I believe that historic CO2 levels have also been determined by looking at ocean, lake and river sediments, and by other methods besides. Essentially, anything exposed to the atmosphere for a long period of time will eventually end up in equilibrium with it, and the equilibrium amounts of carbon in the thing will reflect the level of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time. If something then happens which isolates the thing from the atmosphere (i.e. being buried under layers of ice, clay, or rock), those equilibrium levels become fixed.
By digging up and examining the thing, we can tell what the CO2 levels were in the atmosphere when it was buried. And since the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere is constant (because it is in equilibrium with solar radiation, which we know from our models of stellar behavior), but increases over time once an object is isolated from the atmosphere (since C-12 is stable but C-14 is radioactive), scientists can also look at the isotope ratio to determine the age of the sample (carbon dating). There are many variations on this theme, but this basically covers all methods of getting historical information from present-day objects.
quote:It seems that the scientists disputing that there is a problem are about as legitimate and as credible as the scientists promoting creation science.
This depends on what "there is a problem" means.
Global warming? Nobody disputes that the earth is getting warmer. Opposition to belief in global warming isn't a real position, but a straw man.
That global warming is caused by human activity? The idea that anyone who disputes journalistic orthodoxy on this is a crank is indeed what ideologues would have us believe, but it isn't true. I'm not a climatologist, but I did study climatology briefly, and I do know something about physics. Most of earth's insolation comes in its equatorial region (of course); the air of that belt is saturated with water vapor. (Deserts appear further from the equator.) Water vapor plugs the same infrared holes that CO2 does -- not perfectly, but it's pretty close. CO2's effect is therefore minimized.
The albedo difference between icy and non-icy polar regions doesn't matter much for insolation, because polar regions don't *get* much insolation. The insulation effect of sea ice matters some, because without it, the sea can radiate heat to space. (Not much; it's cold water.)
Of course the article presents no evidence that human activity is responsible for global warming, because there isn't any past mere correlation; and global temperatures also correlate well with sunspot activity, which we can't possibly be responsible for. It instead presents evidence that the world is getting warmer, and asks us to treat it as evidence that humanity is responsible. I have to admire the rhetoric.
Now, it's possible that some feedback mechanisms fight the damping mechanisms we know of, such that human activity will cause the earth to warm. (Or to cool. Particulate matter in the air -- that is, pollution -- makes the atmosphere more reflective.) If this turns out to be true, what should be done? To stop industrial CO2 emissions would collapse civilization; billions would starve. If we cut them in half, maybe only half as many will starve. We *can't* stop CO2 emissions. The price is way, way too high.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Global warming? Nobody disputes that the earth is getting warmer. Opposition to belief in global warming isn't a real position, but a straw man.
I'm going to have to disagree with that one; read Occasional's post in this very thread :
quote: am disputing the change, actually. I guess I could have said "the climate changes all the time, and very drastically. This time, however, is not one of them." The so-called trends aren't enough to register on my pay attention meter.
posted
Will, nobody is claiming that CO2 is the only factor affecting global temperature. But it is a large one. CO2 is a well-known greenhouse gas, and historical temperature and atmospheric CO2 graphs over the last 400,000 years match up very well. So it's hard to argue against the idea that CO2 affects temperature levels, and equally hard to argue against the idea that human behavior is affecting atmospheric CO2 levels. Of course, one could debate how much of global warming is the result of human behavior, but human behavior is certainly contributing.
posted
Actually, we have strong evidence that increases in global temperature cause increases in CO2, by driving it out of solution in bogs (there have been measurements done) and possibly also in bodies of water.
I'm sure that human behavior does have some effect on global temperatures, although it's hard to say whether it works with or against global warming.
KoM: I should have said, nobody in science disputes that the earth is getting warmer. We can measure ocean temperatures.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so apparently I'm not explaining myself clearly enough.
1)I DO care about global warming, and I DO care about how our actions are affecting the future generations, and I DON'T think it's natural in the sense of being a natural climate change.
quote: ...I'm not trying to say that I don't care about global warming or its consequences, or that something shouldn't be done about it...
However:
2)Everything is impermanent. Life, politics, property, emotion, even prophetic religion. Nothing is static. That said, however important our property, children or friends are to us, we can't protect them after we're gone, even if we take measures to reduce global warming now, even if we are able to stop it completely, we still have no control beyond teaching them what we know, and doing our best to make sure the world we leave to them is clean and well cared for.
3) When I say,
quote: I'm rather comfortable with the idea of humans being impermanent
, I'm trying to say that the same impermanence that applies to property, faith, emotion etc. applies to humans as a species as well. We may or may not survive some of the things that happen to the planet. If we do, the individual happiness of our ancestors is not contingent on what once was. Thus I am not very worried about the happiness of my future children, or my children's children, because regardless of changes that happen to the Earth, they'll still be capable of reasoning, philosophizing, having faith and all the other things that make me happy.
4) As I mentioned in a thread some time ago, nature works by trying to find a balance. For example: too many wolves, fewer deer, fewer deer means fewer wolves in the next year, fewer wolves, more deer, more deer allows wolves to prosper again and so on and so forth. Humans, who have no natural predators are instead checked in population by disease, famine, flooding, and of course the wars we started amongst ourselves. Potential flooding of coastal areas, destruction of farmland and the like I see as a continuation of this cycle of limiting the human population for a time, so it can then rise up once more. This is NOT to say that the world is necessarily overly populated, but instead that while one area of the world may become desolate or flooded, or submersed in famine, another, previously harsh region may become suitable for habitation as a result of the changes in the Earth's climate.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I've said in other global climate change threads, eliminating pollution isn't even about stopping global warming. There are a half dozen other reasons, good reasons, for ending pollution and deforestation now that make more immediate sense than to stem the tide of global warming.
Ending pollution should be done for our generation, and for the next. It's a short and long term investment at the same time.
Are we causing global warming? No one knows for sure, and it doesn't even matter. Air pollution, water contamination, and other health problems are all perfectly sound reasons to end pollution. For the health of the nation, and for the sake of the almighty dollar. We waste billions on healthcare to pay for the end result of our own pollution. Not to mention the fact that a switch to a renewable energy based economy will create thousands of new jobs and put billions of dollars into our economy, while at the same time creating a new security for our nation by making ourselves wholly energy independent.
Therefore I submit that the question of ending pollution for the sake of global warming and future generations is really a moot point. We should do it for ourselves, for purely selfish and greedy reasons that will in the future look noble and selfless.
The question now is, climate change is coming whether we like it or not, how well prepared for it are we? How well prepared should we be?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nuclear energy is one way we can prevent CO2 release into the atmosphere. If we ramp up our nuclear generation of electricity from the current 20% to around 80% that should put a big dent in the amount of CO2 we're dumping into the air.
Another idea is burying CO2 between impermeable layers in the earth. There was an article in Scientific American about it a few months ago. Maybe for every barrel of oil we continue to use, we could pump the equivalent amount of CO2 back down the wells.
People prefer to refuse to see threats that they think they can't defend against, I think. There is no need for conspiracy theories or partisan politics to explain that. Dismantling civilization to quit burning fossil fuels entirely, obviously isn't a valid solution. Hopefully there will be other solutions devised that will be more workable. In the meantime, buy some flood insurance. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
I was about to start a thread about this and I saw yours, seems your 2 steps ahead of me.
To start,
_____________________________
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Nope. Keep trying. You should read the history of the world sometime. Climate and conditions change all the time -- sometimes very drastically. Earth remains alive and well.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That doesn't strike you as a wee bit willfully ignorant and irresponsible?
Indeed.
______________________________
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Occ. CO2 levels are at their highest point in at least 2 million years (and perhaps as much as 30+ million years) according to the latest data.
Fact.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Whichever, it's probably already too late to really do much about it, so we might as well just take bets and see what happens.
countered by,
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Nuclear energy is one way we can prevent CO2 release into the atmosphere. If we ramp up our nuclear generation of electricity from the current 20% to around 80% that should put a big dent in the amount of CO2 we're dumping into the air.
Another idea is burying CO2 between impermeable layers in the earth. There was an article in Scientific American about it a few months ago. Maybe for every barrel of oil we continue to use, we could pump the equivalent amount of CO2 back down the wells.
Well it is pretty disturbing what is going on all over the world and what is happening lately is a matter of concern. Personally most of the abnormalities that have been occurring lately are caused by Global Warming, or at least we don’t have to discard the possibilities.
The article Lyrhawn posted from TIME pretty much explains everything, and his answer is in ABC´s article:
People as a whole aren’t doing much to prevent it, the media isn’t doing much either. People who don’t care will care when it’s them who are affected.
It is a cycle that this planet goes through, but humanity is precipitating this cycle, by doing what its doing.
Who’s to blame? Ourselves.
Please take this into consideration, its animals who are affected the most, now at least, perhaps us later.
Posts: 56 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Murders are also inevitable, Epictetus, yet I don't see anyone suggesting that society should just ignore murderers.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I guess it's time to move to Denver and start building my awesome catamaran with parachute booster sail.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure someone on here can clear up this question I have. I read somewhere that nature puts about 200 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. Last I heard, we estimate all of humankind's contributions to be about 7 billion tons annually.
Obviously nature has some sort of closed loop or something to regulate this (that particular terminology comes to mind after reading about positive feedback in the article). My question is this: is the natural system so close to going out of control that a 3.5% increase in CO2 emissions will lead to its collapse?
Additionally, positive feedback systems are inherently unstable (hence the cause for concern when this phenomenon is called positive feedback). If there is actually a major positive feedback loop happening, is there any natural systems to act as negative feedback short of an environmental catastrophe?
If there is a positive feedback loop happening, how will reducing CO2 emissions help? My understanding of a positive feedback loop is that once started, even if the input drops the output of the system will still head to infinity, sort of like a chain reaction. I realize I am greatly oversimplifying here, but hopefully the gist of what I mean is coming across.
My last question is why in the world hasn't there been a huge push for nuclear reactors? To be honest, it seems like a lot of anti-nuclear propoganda is coming from those who are most loudly sounding the global warning alarm. If indeed this crisis is upon us, mankind's fault, and in our power to fix, nuclear power would seem like a godsend in order to give us time to develop even better technologies without ruining the planet in the meantime.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the position I'm drifting towards is starting to look like this:
1. It seems like the diagnosis given by many of the global warming alarmists doesn't really match the solution they're offering. Global warming is going to cause widespread disasters within a couple of decades, so ... let's invest in early-prevention measures like reducing emissions?
2. We are barely capable of sustaining what Westerners consider to be a decent standard of living for a fraction of the world's population at our current rate of environmental exploitation. Providing that same standard of living for all six billion of us would bankrupt the planet within a few decades. It strikes me that reducing our CO2 emissions to such a degree that it would have a significant effect on global climate would mean reducing the standard of living of the entire world to an unacceptably low level.
3. Clearly, humans are not the only factor in global climate. Even within recorded history, we can see warming and cooling cycles and climate changes that had nothing to do with industry, but still had a significant effect on human civilization. (And actually, at least for Europeans, past warming trends have been a very good thing.)
4. Clearly, our disaster preparedness sucks. It sucks very, very hard.
So with those four things in mind, I think that the global warming enthusiasts are going about this in exactly the wrong way. If the big disasters are imminent, then we need to focus on achievable goals, like beefing up our disaster preparedness, and developing strategies for potentialities like, "What if we had to abandon New York City?"
And if they aren't imminent, then we should have some time to figure out this whole environmental-exploitation thing from a different perspective — I want to figure out what it would take to reduce the cost of a Western standard of living to the point at which we can offer it to everyone in the world without bankrupting the planet. Does it mean cutting back on our individual expectations? If so, how much? And how much lower does it have to go before it's sustainable over the long term? At that point, what would our society look like?
And regarding my third point, all I'm really saying is, I think we're spending too much time throwing the blame around, and too little time realizing that with or without our own impact on the environment, the environment still changes, and we need to be ready for it. Ready to survive the disasters and exploit the benefits. Too many of our forebears have been caught off-guard. Today, we should have the means to do more than just survive.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: why in the world hasn't there been a huge push for nuclear reactors? To be honest, it seems like a lot of anti-nuclear propoganda is coming from those who are most loudly sounding the global warning alarm. If indeed this crisis is upon us, mankind's fault, and in our power to fix, nuclear power would seem like a godsend in order to give us time to develop even better technologies without ruining the planet in the meantime.
I think a large reason for the reluctance to pursue nuclear reactors is the waste, it has to be stored somewhere safe, and most of the viable locations are in states that have a strong opposition to such material being transported across their land.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but according to these scientists, this is the END OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT. You'd think stuff like that would take a backseat.
I'm agree with a lof of what Puppy said. If the problem is as serious as it's being made out to be, then our measures being considered ought to be reflective of that.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, but trying to convice the Utah government of that, for example, would still be pretty difficult.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It seems, though, that you are not disputing the fact of the change? Go back ten years, and people were not convinced even of that. Now it's "not our fault" and "won't affect us", isntead. We'll see.
That's because ten years ago we were screaming about the hole in the ozone layer and the fact that it was caused by CFCs. Remember? We all got new antifreeze for our cars and refridgerators and the ingredeints in aeresol cans was changed to exclude them. Then we found out that there is always a hole in the ozone layer that gets bigger and/or smaller every year and that while it has recently been larger than it was previously we have only been recording the phenomenon for about 25 years so we really don't know if it is behaving differently or not.
The reason people aren't getting terribly fussed about Global Warming is that too many remember that the environmentalists have been going on these kicks on a regular basis in alarmist manners and that much of what they have said is proven later to be normal cycles of the earth's environment.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The above is not disputing the fact that the earth is getting warmer, just pointing out the reason why people are refusing to be alarmed by it.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
