Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I read some of it, Walter. Its all predictable reading, before I even read it, I knew what it said.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Just wondering, whats new about wars, famines, and migration, Walter?

Exactly.

Wars have always existed. Famines, too.

And migration really is a good thing.

Nothing to see here.

Move on.

0 Replies

oe, you finally figured out something. Congratulations.

0 Replies

Two questions to okie:

1) Even though wars have always existed: do you want to die in one?
2) Even though famines have always existed: do you want to die from starvation?

0 Replies

No to both questions. And your point is?

0 Replies

My point is: if we don't want to die in wars, even though wars have always been with us, or die from starvation, even though famines have always existed, we should probably do something to prevent them.

Do you disagree?

0 Replies

I agree, if the prevention is possible, and if the prevention is not worse than the alternative.

To replow the same old ground, it all depends on how you view the politics of this. Unfortunately, there are people that have already concluded, and they want everyone else to already have the same conclusion, that man has caused global warming, and that CO2 is the main culprit, and that the cure for this problem is not only possible, but better than the alternative. I am not ready to rubber stamp any of the above, because there is much evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, the issue is now more of a political football than a scientific one.

Crucial to this debate, to solve a problem, you must first identify the primary cause of the problem, and that a solution is both necessary and feasible. Otherwise, the cure is worse than the ill.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I agree, if the prevention is possible, and if the prevention is not worse than the alternative.

If the alternative would be migration, famines and wars, what would you see as worse than that?

0 Replies

There have always been climate cycles. Have you heard of the potato famine? Change is unavoidable. Weather changes. Climate changes. The best thing we can do is try to be flexible. Free enterprise offers the best remedy to change, as it is flexible and will shift its emphasis according to where specific sectors of the economy thrive the best. I do not believe the change will be so sudden that reasonable and flexible people in free economies cannot adjust, change, and thrive as well.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
I agree, if the prevention is possible, and if the prevention is not worse than the alternative.

If the alternative would be migration, famines and wars, what would you see as worse than that?

0 Replies

oe, prevention may also cause wars, famine, and migration. And that is assuming prevention is possible. Attempts at prevention may also cause wars, famine, and migration.

0 Replies

I find it hard to believe that trying to reduce emissions will lead to outright war, Okie. You're stretching a little with that one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

There have always been climate cycles. Have you heard of the potato famine?

I've heard of that, of course. And about "The Forgotten Famine" as well as of other, previous famines.

Is that just a rhetoric question and do you want to start a discussion if it was genocide by the British ... ... ...

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I find it hard to believe that trying to reduce emissions will lead to outright war, Okie. You're stretching a little with that one.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, we re-argue the same points, but the reduction of emissions so far has not accomplished anything in the overall scheme of things. My argument, to restate, is that if the remedy is applied in proportion to the illness as described, would be draconian and would cause much social upheaval. The remedies applied so far are nothing more than putting a bandaid on a cancerous tumor. I don't believe it is a cancerous tumor, but for those that do, I wonder why their prescription is a bandaid, thats all?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I find it hard to believe that trying to reduce emissions will lead to outright war, Okie. You're stretching a little with that one.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, we re-argue the same points, but the reduction of emissions so far has not accomplished anything in the overall scheme of things. My argument, to restate, is that if the remedy is applied in proportion to the illness as described, would be draconian and would cause much social upheaval. The remedies applied so far are nothing more than putting a bandaid on a cancerous tumor. I don't believe it is a cancerous tumor, but for those that do, I wonder why their prescription is a bandaid, thats all?

Well, the truth is that many are in the middle on it - such as myself. I don't think the ice caps are going to slide off into the ocean and drown me here in the Bay Area anytime soon. But I don't think we are having zero effect on the environment either, and can see how things could be worse, so I think we should be taking some action on the subject.

You say that the 'reduction of emissions so far has not accomplished anything in the overall scheme of things' but that's just not true. Maybe from a global warming standpoint, but that's only half the problem; the other half is pollution, which we have done a good job reducing but need to do a lot more.

An example of emissions reduction working would be coal plants - they produce less than half the emissions they did 30 years ago. And it is because of pressure from environmentalists that this happened, the coal companies wouldn't have just done it on their own.

Truthfully, we don't know how bad the emissions and climate change problems are. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it, however; when you see someone dripping blood, you don't investigate the cause and determine exactly what the problem is; you apply pressure right away, for a short-term help, and then try to understand the problem. The things proposed by many (rational) environmentalists are the equivalent of first aid: if with more research it turns out that things aren't as bad as we'd worried, it will be a happy surprise. If things aren't that bad, it's a good thing we got on top of it early enough to do something about it, right?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well, I will concede reasonable efforts are reasonable. It is the wild eyed sky is falling crowd that really make little sense, and want us to get all worked up over impending doom. I believe reasonable measures within a free market economy offer the best path to a reasonable policy. I am glad you aren't afraid of being drowned anytime soon due to the polar ice caps melting. I agree, I am not particularly worried about the dire predictions by some either, so that is why I enjoy disagreeing with Walter and oe concerning dire predictions of war and famine. I live inland, have a garden, I'm a little too old to be drafted into the military and I don't plan on joining, and figure on dying with or without a war or famine in a number of years, hopefully quite a number.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The remedies applied so far are nothing more than putting a bandaid on a cancerous tumor.

Interesting enough, that was exactly the argument that EU Commission President Barroso made.

0 Replies

The analogy sort of applies. To kill a cancerous tumor, serious chemotherapy and radiation could be used, which might kill the patient. Now, if the patient is found to not have had a cancerous tumor at all, was it a successful treatment?

If global warming is man caused, and if we are at the tipping point, as Al Gore claims, it is equivalent to a cancerous tumor, and serious measures are going to be required to reverse the tumor. A bandaid approach does no good, which is what is being used now.

I am one of a large body of people, and scientists as well, that believe the problem is not a cancerous tumor at all, so we do not favor chemotherapy or radiation treatments. Also, we are mystified, and I keep asking the question of the Al Gores of the world, if you believe it is a cancerous tumor, why do you keep prescribing a bandaid? You see, I don't really believe they think it is a tumor either or they would behave differently. It is only a game they play to gain control over the patient and make some money on the patient.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The analogy sort of applies. To kill a cancerous tumor, serious chemotherapy and radiation could be used, which might kill the patient. Now, if the patient is found to not have had a cancerous tumor at all, was it a successful treatment?

If global warming is man caused, and if we are at the tipping point, as Al Gore claims, it is equivalent to a cancerous tumor, and serious measures are going to be required to reverse the tumor. A bandaid approach does no good, which is what is being used now.

I am one of a large body of people, and scientists as well, that believe the problem is not a cancerous tumor at all, so we do not favor chemotherapy or radiation treatments. Also, we are mystified, and I keep asking the question of the Al Gores of the world, if you believe it is a cancerous tumor, why do you keep prescribing a bandaid? You see, I don't really believe they think it is a tumor either or they would behave differently. It is only a game they play to gain control over the patient and make some money on the patient.

Okie makes an interesting argument here.

If in fact all those "thousands of scientists" who concur that global warming is human caused are truly convinced of that fact; and, if those lauding Al Gore et al agree that the time is short to reverse that process and save the planet as we know it, why aren't they clamoring for the truly draconian measures necessary to stop it?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If in fact all those "thousands of scientists" who concur that global warming is human caused are truly convinced of that fact; and, if those lauding Al Gore et al agree that the time is short to reverse that process and save the planet as we know it, why aren't they clamoring for the truly draconian measures necessary to stop it?

I suppose, you are not referring to what they actually postulate as measurements but what politicans (like from the EU and national European countries) think, they can achieve acceptance in the population of.

Because, those scientists really speak about draconic measures - knowng themselves that they can't change old habits ... and the world.

The Green parties are the only political force, slightly following that line.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know