1
   

Climate Change must be tackled NOW

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 01:00 am
Piffka wrote:
In Greenland, and I have no reason to expect anything different on the Antarctic continent,

This is correct as far as Greenland is concerned. But if you follow my link to the article on the NASA website, you will notice that Greenland is tiny compared to the part of the arctic ice cap that floats on water. When you analyze global trends, you have to look at the whole picture, not just a small area.

Piffka wrote:
Who said that Antarctica is cooling? It lost a huge piece of the Ross ice field last year due, I thought, to its warming trend.

It did lose that large piece. But that was one highly reported incident. (There was another such incident, not quite so well reported, a couple of weeks ago.) Antarctica as a whole is cooling. I posted a reference for it, near the middle of the thread, in response to Walter.

The question I'm interested in is, how does that impact our well-being? If you look at the publications on the IPCC website, you'll notice that they have already looked into the question of how global warming will affect sea levels. From memory, I think they predict a rise of about one or two feet in the next century. It's a real change, but it's about the size of tidal waves. Nothing even close to the stories of whole cities being flooded. These are pure fantasy. But the fantasy is where the thrust of the dire warnings about rising sea levels comes from.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 05:04 am
Scrat wrote:
Thomas - What do you think about the idea that fuel cell development will occur at a rate dictated by the market? (I've tried to write that without "loading" the question.)

I'd like to add something to my first response. Do we agree, Scrat, that this point cuts both ways? Do we agree it also covers market interventions that conservatives favor? When oil prices rise, this is strictly a market incentive to economize on oil and look out for alternative energy sources. It does not merit political intervention of any kind. No handing out of drilling rights to the oil companies that made Dick Cheney rich, especially not in national parks. No regime changing in faraway countries. If they chose to invade each other, or have leaders America doesn't like, that's their problem. And no more support for the muslim fundamentalist Saudi Arabians, fifteen of whom crashed airplanes into sensitive American places. (It is worth remembering here that both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein used to have America's support.)
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 08:45 am
Quote:
fifteen of whom crashed airplanes into sensitive American places.


Six of whom came out alive!
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 08:53 am
Let's summarize things: Thomas knows global warming is happening and is not disputing our major influence on it. So far so good. Now his critique on politics to prevent damage caused by global warming, is that they are not worth the investment.

What is the price of a human life, Thomas. Let alone 15000. Is this news about the record heat wave a part of your knowledge, or have you just filtered it out in order not to admit a personal mistake?
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 09:35 am
another possible factor in global warming : sun in a frenzy say german researchers !www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm hbg
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 09:44 am
I believe that the raging forest fires in Southern California will have more impact on the global warming problem that Wolf is concerned about than the next decade of car exhaust will. Yet, I don't hear Wolf barking about the ill effects of nature on itself.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 10:20 am
wolf wrote:
What is the price of a human life, Thomas.

About 5-10 million Dollars each, judging by people's willingness to risk their own lives. I know it sounds heartless at first to attatch a dollar value to a human life, but all other workable approaches to policymaking work worse. This is why health insurances, traffic engineers and other people who work to protect lives use this approach in designing their policies and technologies.

But to return to your point, those people didn't die because it was hot. Places like Spain or Southern Texas are routinely hotter than France. These deaths occured because temperatures were higher than the French expected when they built their houses. There are two ways to prevent this from happening in the future: you can make temperatures lower by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which is what you are proposing. Or you can adjust your expectations, expect higher temperatures in the future and behave accordingly. For example, the French could install air conditioning, improve their medical infra structure, et cetera. This is what I would do about it, because I believe my approach yields better life protection for the money.

Another point worth noting is that heat waves happened before global warming too, so it's imprudent to assume that none of these 15000 people would have died because of global warming. My understanding is that much fewer people are dying from extreme weather conditions today than did 100 years ago. I'm not saying we have have global warming to thank for it, but it also didn't prevent it. That's more reason to believe technical fixes will do an adequate job.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 10:57 am
Thomas - I agree that interventions into the natural functioning of markets are bad without regard to who champions them. That written, I deny your contention that your examples amount to same. Government artificially intervened in the markets by blocking oil exploration and use in certain areas. Opening those areas to use is undoing that intervention.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 11:04 am
Scrat wrote:
Thomas - I agree that interventions into the natural functioning of markets are bad without regard to who champions them. That written, I deny your contention that your examples amount to same. Government artificially intervened in the markets by blocking oil exploration and use in certain areas. Opening those areas to use is undoing that intervention.

Point acknowledged. How about that regime changing business?
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 11:43 am
McGentrix wrote:
I believe that the raging forest fires in Southern California will have more impact on the global warming problem that Wolf is concerned about than the next decade of car exhaust will. Yet, I don't hear Wolf barking about the ill effects of nature on itself.


First of all, it's highly probable, according to investigators, that the fires were artificially ignited. Second, how could I bark about the effects of nature on itself, when there is nothing in my power to prevent this. Anything in my power is related to human intervention, for which you and I are responsible.

Thomas: go see a doctor. You only believe in personal prophecies. People are falling like flies, agriculture has suffered, polar caps are melting, the whole Earth is rapidly changing in its climatic character. And mr. Nag nags on in his typical monadic, sterile, and almost inhumane rationality.

In fact, you would be an excellent press spokesman. Maybe Bush is looking for a new Ari Fleischer. You know, the type of guy that lies and lies without even being aware of it, and thinks he can get away with anything.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 12:18 pm
wolf wrote:
Thomas: go see a doctor.

Thanks for the kind advice! Actually, I tend to like it when discussion partners get nasty and personal on me. It shows a lack of confidence in the power of their arguments. And you have shown me a lot of inconfidence in this thread.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 01:21 pm
There is no merit in someone who lays aside obvious ecological dangers and its parallel corroborated science with a stroke of pedant ersatz reasonability. Insult is due. Your posts on global warming are wolves in sheep's clothes: they seem intelligent, but are outright poison. Today you were even so devious as to dishonor the climatological lethality of Europe's last summer. Not only France had its increase in deaths, it was all over northern Europe. Your rationale in defence of human life in the Camp Xray thread has a malicious twist in this one. Here you went too far by branding life with a pricetag. Yes, you need a psychiatrist.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 01:28 pm
Wolf,

Well at last you have cited an element in which your posts are superior to those of Thomas.

You accuse his as follows, "... they seem intelligent, but they are outright poison..."

Yours. on the other hand, amply betray all the narrow-minded ignorance and credulous fanaticism you have brought to this thread.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 01:31 pm
Thomas wrote:
Point acknowledged. How about that regime changing business?

Are you against forcing regime change when it is deemed in the best interests of humanity? Were you against it when Clinton forced regime change in Bosnia? Kosovo?

You state the notion that we ousted Saddam to manipulate the price of crude oil as if you were stating a fact. It isn't. I believe we ousted Saddam because it is in our interests to have a more stable, less anti-Western middle east, and we saw an opportunity to push the middle east in that direction by toppling Saddam and creating a friendlier, freer and more open society where his dysfunctional cleptocracy stood. (I believe you know this.)

Is oil part of the picture? How can it not be? If the middle east never had oil, its nations would never have gained the power and import which they carry today. To use a favorite quote; "If things were different, they wouldn't be the same." BUT, the notion that we toppled Saddam to get our hands on his oil is beneath your intellect, Thomas. It's easy and fun to think in such simple terms, but it isn't valid thinking. We could have done that years ago, and we would have done it differently, were that the goal.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 02:24 pm
Scrat wrote:
Are you against forcing regime change when it is deemed in the best interests of humanity? Were you against it when Clinton forced regime change in Bosnia? Kosovo?

As it happens, I was. Ever since the 19th century, the Balkan has had a history of civil wars, made worse by foreign intervention. The 1990s were a rerun of this -- though the main culprit was not Clinton but our own Kohl administration. They were way too quick to recognize Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegowina.

Anyway, I agree there is an important difference between Bosnia and Iraq. While no stranger to corruption, Clinton never used Bosnia to hand out $1.2 billion in no-bid contracts to the company that had made his vice president rich.

Scrat wrote:
You state the notion that we ousted Saddam to manipulate the price of crude oil as if you were stating a fact. It isn't.

Oh, I was mainly thinking about the more clear-cut cases, like supporting the Saudis who are almost as fundamentalist as Ayatollah Khomeini, or like the 1950s, when Eisenhower helped the Shah overthrow the democratically elected Iranian president. Or the 1980s, when Reagan supported Saddam Hussein and the Taliban on the theory that my enemy's enemy is my friend.' It never occured to me that the wars in Iraq might fit into this tradition. But now that you mention it .... Wink

Scrat wrote:
I believe we ousted Saddam because it is in our interests to have a more stable, less anti-Western middle east,

We'll see if the war turns out to be successful in terms of that goal. My impression so far is that public opinion in the Middle East has become more anti-Western, not less. Let's talk about it in half a year ...
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 03:27 pm
georgeob1 on the dangers of climate change:

Quote:
narrow-minded ignorance and credulous fanaticism

... ... ...


Another candidate for the nuthouse. I preferred it when we agreed george.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/22/2021 at 05:59:29