1
   

Climate Change must be tackled NOW

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2003 12:15 pm
Walter --

From the top of my head, the first example that comes to my mind (certainly not the only one in existence) is pretty much all of Antarctica except the coasts, which are warming slightly.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2003 12:24 pm
I cordially admit my great concern for the future of our species. If you want to call that religious hysteria, you're wrong. It's scientifically legitimized hysteria. It's scientifically reasonable to adapt to a certain panic. Those who choose to lay aside hundreds of studies from all over the world, by all possible governmental bodies, confirming that global warming is real and dangerous, are biased. At best -- I believe they rather merit to be labeled propagandist hypocrits.

Why do I use such strong language? Because the counter-arguments my opponents provide are scientifically non-existent. Thomas, George and Scrat just stated not to accept the science presented to them, even if this science comes from the most respectable sources: the environmental political frameworks within the UN, the EU and the US. Have they shown any respect for these conclusions, who have since long outgrown the hypothetical stage? No. Have they presented counter arguments? No. I dare them to resummarize them in the next reply, backed up with independent links.

So what can one say? Why do they nevertheless keep on fighting me?

Their motivation to counter the development of alternative energy systems, is by all economical, ideological and political standards inspired by a conservative agenda. If any of them would have shown any enthousiasm for the promising use of solar, aeolian and other clean and decentralized energy productions, I would have refrained from labeling anyone as conservative. Unfortunately, their quite amazing lack of ecological insight was countered with fuzzy science and a lot of impressive but eventually hollow phrases.

The reason for this desperate behavior reveals itself. The character assassination they now attempt to perform is telling for their scientifical emptiness. From the top of the head, Thomas, just doesn't cut it. Neither do your fancy color schemes, Scrat. Links please, certified ones, if possible.

I'm waiting.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2003 12:38 pm
Wolf - You have shown no interest in any point of view but your own. I won't waste my time. Live in your world, where there are ample crises over which you can wring your hands. I'll live in mine, where we are dealing as best we can with REALITY (not that you'd notice).
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2003 12:47 pm
No problem, wolf!

Here you go! And here is the original reference, in case you want to check.

Doran, P. T., J. C. Priscu, W. B. Lyons, J. E. Walsh, A. G. Fountain, D. M. McKnight, D. L. Moorhead, R. A. Virginia, D. H. Wall, G. D. Clow, C. H. Fritsen, C. P. McKay, and A. N. Parsons, 2002: Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response. Nature 15, 517-520.

I am sure you will now revoke your accusation of scientific emptiness and apologize for it, now that I have made the effort to disprove it. Smile

-- Thomas
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2003 12:48 pm
There is simply no proof for your worldview, Scrat. That's a slight problem, isn't it? Or is science irrelevant? I'm still waiting for your authoritative scientific links.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2003 01:05 pm
Thomas, thanks for your link. It's a start, and preferable to the usual low-aiming scorn I'm confronted with.

However: is that study indicative for the independence of global warming from human activity? Does that study quieten the alarming climate destabilisation we will encounter if GHG amounts continue to rise due to human activity?

Please try to find something that disproves just that. Some regions temporally cooling down are no consolation to the global warming alert.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2003 01:19 pm
wolf wrote:
Please try to find something that disproves just that. Some regions temporally cooling down are no consolation to the global warming alert.

No I won't. All I claimed two posts ago was that there's a local cooling trend in Antartica -- you will remember that Walter asked about it -- so that's all I feel obliged to back up with literature. As I said a few days ago, I don't doubt that global warming is real, which implies I can't post conclusive evidence that it's not. What I'm doubting is that global warming is on net worth fixing, given the cost of doing so. I have raised this concern very near the beginning of your thread, and you have yet to address it even though georgeob reminded you at least once. I am more than willing to discuss my views with you. But frankly I see no effort on your side to acknowledge that people who disagree with you might have a point, and that they might not necessarily be dishonest, ideologically blinded, or incompetent. That makes discussions with you rather difficult and unpleasant.

-- Thomas
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2003 01:27 pm
Thanks for answering my question, Thomas.

I'v found your link myself, did meanwhile some more research.

I strongly believe that global warming effects all of us, that some states and most humans could do more against it, that it will deadly effect our (grand-)children ... - but I fully agree that it is useless to discuss this with 'concrete heads'.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2003 01:33 pm
wolf wrote:
There is simply no proof for your worldview, Scrat. That's a slight problem, isn't it? Or is science irrelevant? I'm still waiting for your authoritative scientific links.

Wolf - I look at all available information and conclude that we don't know enough to be storming off in any direction or making any announcements. You look at the information you LIKE and whine that others don't reach the same half-informed conclusions you reach.

Science is only irrelevant to you and yours (any science with which you disagree).

Oh, and hold your breath... I'll be right back with those links you demanded. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2003 01:40 pm
Thomas, if you believe that global warming is not worth fixing, and can be allowed to slingshot at random, there is indeed nothing further to discuss between us. Because this passive point of view, I repeat, is based on nothing but your personal reservations towards the incontrovertible extrapolations made by an enormous number of unquestionable scientific findings, who do recognize alarming effects for our future climatic conditions.

Regions are being flooded. Seasons are shifting. All this in an infinitely short lapse of time, and mainly due to direct fossil carbonization. Provable counter-arguments against this have not been provided by anyone on this board. Your skeptical attacks have more traits in common with a soothing lullaby, in defense of the post-industrial system, than with science.

Conclusion: climate change must be tackled now, before global warming trends go from nasty local effects to global disasters, irrepairable for at least five decades (the time greenhouse gases are held up in the stratosphere.)
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2003 02:34 pm
Wolf,

Perhaps the best thing you could do on behalf of your environmentalist alarmist friends would be to discontinue your attempts to prosletyse others concerning the global warming issue. You have thoroughly alienated a diverse group of people on this thread with your steadfast refusal to engage the issues, lack of understanding of the processes involved, and rigid demands that your interlocutors accept exactly your (mis) interpretations of the issues - and do so right now.

In a phrase - you couldn't sell heaters to Eskimos.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2003 03:33 pm
I get very frustrated when people want to keep everything as it is because they're too ostracised to admit their way of living might need important adjustments. The Easter Islanders were just as short-sighted. And they perished.

The planet's ecosystem is more fragile than we imagine; several sane persons in this thread have expressed their concerns about this. I just hoped we could at least agree on the need to pollute less. Then we can stop this ridiculous fight.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2003 04:06 pm
To paraphrase my anger and concerns:

Quote:
The Easter Islanders, Polynesian people, settled an island that was originally forested, and whose forests included the world's largest palm tree. The Easter Islanders gradually chopped down that forest to use the wood for canoes, firewood, transporting statues, raising statues, and carving and also to protect against soil erosion. Eventually they chopped down all the forests to the point where all the tree species were extinct, which meant that they ran out of canoes, they could no longer erect statues, there were no longer trees to protect the topsoil against erosion, and their society collapsed in an epidemic of cannibalism that left 90 percent of the islanders dead. The question that most intrigued my UCLA students was one that hadn't registered on me: how on Earth could a society make such an obviously disastrous decision as to cut down all the trees on which they depended? For example, my students wondered, what did the Easter Islanders say as they were cutting down the last palm tree? Were they saying, think of our jobs as loggers, not these trees? Were they saying, respect my private property rights? Surely the Easter Islanders, of all people, must have realized the consequences to them of destroying their own forest. It wasn't a subtle mistake. One wonders whether [...] people in the next century will be equally astonished about our blindness today as we are today about the blindness of the Easter Islanders.


source
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Jun, 2003 06:13 pm
wolf, There's a big difference between "poluting less" and wholesale changes in the way we now live. Poluting less is attainable to some realistic degree, but wholesale changes will not occur any time soon. Crying wolf to the world populace about global warming will get you nowhere. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize this. More CO2 producing energy sources are being produced - even as we speak. What has worked is getting companies to comply with environmental safe production methods. We have smog control in California, and that has helped our air quality tremendously. These are the kinds of steps we can take through education and cooperation from government and industry. Telling people that the world is going to end from pollution will not work. Take my word on this. c.i.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2003 03:42 am
What motivated the Easter Islanders seems like exactly the attitude that could do us all in. Science overwhelmingly warns us that our planetary climate is in danger -- "irrelevant," some say "what counts is that I'm free to lay that science aside." If that's not dumb, I don't know what is.

Nevertheless, I'm glad we had this zesty little fight.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2003 12:10 pm
This just in...
Harvesting Hydrogen Fuel from Plants Gets Cheaper <--Link
I had already copied and pasted the content, but SCIAM's terms of use do not permit same, so you'll have to follow the link to read the text. Basically, they found a cheaper catalyst for the reaction.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2003 01:02 pm
Scrat, Sounds good, but when do they expect to develop the technology for use by consumers and industry? c.i.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2003 07:29 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Scrat, Sounds good, but when do they expect to develop the technology for use by consumers and industry? c.i.

Noon tomorrow. Friday at the latest.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2003 08:01 am
Quote:
World's First CO2-neutral Designer Diesel Fuel Presented

By Poul Erik Bak based on material from DaimlerChrysler

The new biofuel, which DaimlerChrysler has named "Biotrol", can be added without any difficulty to current fuels and may become important in the fuel-portfolio to combat emissions and oil-dependence.

At the Environmental Press Conference held in Stuttgart, DaimlerChrysler AG presented the world's first synthetic diesel fuel, which does not affect the CO2 atmospheric balance in the atmosphere during driving. This fuel is produced by the complete utilization of organic substances. The carbon dioxide originating in the engine on combustion is taken from the air as plants grow.

This eliminates the additional entry of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by fuel produced from petroleum during driving, a situation which has existed since the time cars were first introduced. Accordingly, the Group assigns high significance to the production of the biofuel: Professor Jürgen Hubbert Member of the Board of Management of DaimlerChrysler AG responsible for the Mercedes Car Group: "We are at the start of a promising development".

According to Dr. Weber, deputy Member of the Board of Management of DaimlerChrysler AG with responsibility for Research and Technology, the fuel is "the cleanest and most environmentally friendly diesel ever." It is produced in a research project supported by the Federal Ministry for Economics and Labor jointly with the Choren company in Freiberg in Saxony, where Choren has facilities for converting the biomass from wood residue into fuel. This is the first system of its type in the world. Volkswagen also joined the research project in the fall of last year.

The new biofuel, which DaimlerChrysler has christened with the name of "Biotrol", can be added without any difficulty to current fuels. The research work is currently in the beginning stage of clarifying if Biotrol can be used as an exclusive fuel, or whether engine modifications are necessary. The research also involves economic viability calculations, questions on sustained production and matters of the overall impact on the production of energy.

Since the fuel can be easily added to existing diesel fuel, there is a reduction in new CO2 emission from new vehicles in existing fleets as well as a potential for reduction in new CO2 emissions from all diesel vehicles, depending on the mixture ratio once the fuel is available.

In the view of the company, from today's perspective in the next decade a considerable share of EU diesel consumption could be covered with biofuels.

Dr. Thomas Weber has offered to cooperate with the mineral oil industry. Political circles in Berlin and Brussels have encouraged Weber to support the further development with "clever decision making", in particular differentiating in environmental discussions between CO2 emissions from bio and fossil sources.

According to the company, the production costs for Biotrol, which are currently at EUR 0.7 per liter, are still two to three times that of conventional fuels. With the further development of production techniques and optimized distribution, DaimlerChrysler expects that costs will continue to decline. Since bio fuels have been exempted from gasoline tax since last year, Biotrol can be offered at competitive prices even today.

At the opening of the first fuel pump, Professor Herbert Kohler, the Group's Chief Environmental Officer and Research Director, said: "The new bio fuel, a colorless, clear liquid, is fundamentally different from all other fuels made from biomatter".

Currently only small quantities of the fuel are available. The Choren production facility is a pilot project, which is soon to be supplemented by a second facility with a higher production capacity and better technology. Intensive research work still has to be done on the new fuel. DaimlerChrysler and Choren, however, are confident that the expectations of the new fuel will also be fulfilled.
© Copyright 2002-2003 by H2CARSBIZ, ZEES A/S


You can use it NOW, c.i., at least in Germany:
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,275657,00.jpg
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2003 09:01 am
I read the article in German, and the second paragraph is just as mysterious as its English translation.

How is this fuel CO2-free, Walter?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 01:06:06