1
   

Global Warming vs. Terrorism

 
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 01:02 pm
Since BernardRmassagatto is incapable of posting without name-calling and of ever changing his broken record, we all need to talk amongst ourselves and ignore him.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 01:10 pm
plainoldme wrote:
Since BernardRmassagatto is incapable of posting without name-calling and of ever changing his broken record, we all need to talk amongst ourselves and ignore him.


plainoldme wrote:
IT IS YOUR BELIEF, YOU UNSOPHISTICATED, UNABLE TO REASON LITTLE TOAD.


Huh.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Sep, 2006 01:17 pm
I guess Bernard's word of the day calender hasn't had any recent "P" words.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 12:39 am
One of the pages by M. Hieb (here at Plants Fossils of West Virginia) I've aked about earlier:

Walter Hinteler wrote:


Monte Hieb (and Harrison Hieb): what is his (their) background in the field of climate science? Why does his/their site(s) link to a whole bunch of fossil-fuel info links/sites?

Why is none of his/their sites ubdated a couple of years? Why last revised in early 2003?

Why are his/their arguments the most valid and the most correct arguments?
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 12:41 am
If you are asking a question, Mr. Hinteler, you have not made it clear. What is it that you are saying or asking?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 12:42 am
BernardR wrote:
If you are asking a question, Mr. Hinteler, you have not made it clear. What is it that you are saying or asking?


I didn't ask a question but answered to Thomas.

Sorry that I didn't make that clear .... and it was posted on the wrong thread as well Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 12:58 am
No problem, Mr. Hinteler. That happens and I know you are a scholar who tries to give valid information--NO PROBLEM!!!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 07:04 am
It amazes me how someone can post something from my link to a scientific article at the same time they claim I never post links to scientific articles.

An interesting dichotomy there Bernard. Which is it? Do I never post links or not?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 12:44 pm
parados -- Your 1 September 2006 post to Bernardagatto about Dr. Lombard's error and his non sequitor response the next day are priceless: the perfect illustration of what is wrong with the anti-global warming faction.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Sep, 2006 02:15 pm
NPR PICK: CLIMATE CHANGE CITED IN SIBERIAN LANDSCAPE SHIFT
Siberia is melting. Vast tracts of Russian tundra, frozen for tens of
thousands of years, are starting to thaw. Many experts say the process
is taking place so fast, they can only attribute it to the effects of
global warming. See photos and learn more about global warming at
http://support.wgbh.org/site/R?i=wy14Nj5O56EaljAF9Tz9MQ..
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 06:35 pm
Quote:
Get ready for freak weather, world's polluters told

Wed Oct 4, 2006

(Reuters) - The world's top polluting nations were told on Wednesday to prepare for decades of weather turmoil, even if they act now to curb emissions and pursue green energy sources.

Environment and energy ministers meeting in the Mexican city of Monterrey vowed to work faster to control global warming as scientists told them each year wasted in curbing greenhouse gas emissions would cost them dearly.

The informal talks did not set emissions-cutting targets, but delegates agreed on the need to expand the global carbon trading market to provide investment for green initiatives.

British Environment Secretary David Miliband said scientists told the meeting that if no action is taken, carbon dioxide emissions will more than double by 2050.

"The meeting has dramatized the need for comprehensive global action. The message about the need for early action is very strong," he told a news conference.

Yet even if countries froze emission levels tomorrow, the world still faces 30 years of floods, heatwaves, hurricanes and coastal erosion, the British government's chief scientific advisor David King, said.

King, who considers global warming a bigger threat than terrorism, said rich nations must help the developing world prepare for a weather shift that could put millions of lives at risk.

"We've got 30 years of climate change ahead of us even if we stop right now. We're persuading countries they have to adapt to the changes that are ahead of them," King told Reuters at the meeting of top greenhouse gas emitting countries.

Because we've raised the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere so quickly, the earth's climate system is falling behind. This is way in excess of anything the planet has known, probably for 45 million years," he said.

Among countries who sent ministers to Monterrey were China and India, whose ballooning demand for energy has made them some of the worst polluters after the United States, which pumps out a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases.

The United States, which could face fiercer hurricanes as sea temperatures rise, sent a senior official, but U.S. officials did not brief the press.

Already, a roughly 1 degree Celsius temperature rise over the past century has allowed icy Greenland to start growing barley, and farmers in Spain are battling arid conditions.

"The people in denial now are the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society," British Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks told Reuters in an interview. "Humankind is in a race for life against global warming."

Delegates discussed energy efficiency, conservation and how to fund initiatives like storing the carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants deep underground.

But it is likely to be at least the end of the decade before most projects can get off the ground.

"Time is running out, and the size of the challenge is enormous," Mexican Environment Minister Jose Luis Luege said.

Developing countries at the talks - including South Africa, Brazil and Mexico - were told to adapt for possible floods, droughts, storms and a surge in tropical diseases like malaria.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 06:52 pm
In other words, get ready for normal weather. I've been around for over a half century and weather has always been freakish, so what's new here?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 08:07 pm
What makes you think that pouring millions of tons of solid waste into the atmosphere for years is not going to have any long term effect on how the sun relates to climate? Why wouldn't it?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 09:19 pm
I have this belief that man is pretty insignificant and could not destroy the earth if he gave it all he had, at least not yet with what we have at our disposal now. Natural disasters, such as catastrophic volcanic eruptions have pumped cubic miles of solid waste into the atmosphere with no significant long-lasting catastrophic effects in recent times. There have been larger events in the geologic past.

If you are interested in the scientific aspects of this debate, plenty, like over 300 pages, can be found in the thread:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=44061&highlight=
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 09:27 pm
Oh, I agree that man can't destroy the earth. But we can make it uninhabitable for ourselves.

It's true that we've had catastrophic volcanic eruptions in the recent past, and maybe you don't call a mini-ice-age and major agricultural upheaval for several years "significant long-lasting catastrophic effects", but imagine how our current society would react to something like a major food supply interruption.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 12:05 am
There would be carnage in the streets. But Free Duck, what evidence do you have that a warming of 2 or 3 degrees will reduce the food supply? In fact, I think good arguments exist that it would increase it.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 04:41 am
Ok time to get serious for a moment.

Global warming is not pitted against terrorism as the subject of this thread implies.

Global warming, terrorism and regional conflict are all linked and have a very simple connection.

The problem is oil and our dependency upon it. Wealth comes from work. But these days most work is performed by machines. In a nutshell our incredibly high standard of living (in historic terms) is supported by our modern industrialised economy which in turn depends on oil.

Now there is a problem with oil. The age of cheap oil is over. It no longer gushes out of the ground. We have to go and find it in increasingly harder places. We are no longer finding new large oil fields. The giant oil fields have passed their peak, and we have to work harder and harder to maintain the flow.

And just at the time when world oil supply is approaching peak, world oil demand is surging ahead as the economies of China and India grow at an exponential rate.

We have never been here before. Previous oil crises were down to politics. This one is about geology.

Whether we like it or not the Western world is going to be increasinly reliant on oil and gas from 5 middle east countries. Iran Iraq Saudi Arabia Kuwait and the UAE. There are some new oil and gas fields to be developed around the Caspian basin but Kazakhstan Uzbekistan Turkmenistan are all land locked. Afghanistan/Pakistan provides the obvious route for oil and gas pipelines to the Arabian Sea. Control over these land areas...I hesitate to call them countries with the ovbious exception of Iran...is vital. All these territories again with the exception of Iran have pro-western governments. Some because we installed them by force, others as a reaction to Russian influence after the collapse of the USSR.

These countries have something else in common. The people are all muslim. During the time the Anglo Iranian oil company (BP) was pumping oil out of that country approximately 14% of the profit BP made was paid to Iran. That is to the Iranian government...which we had installed. How much of the total oil wealth of Iran went to the ordinary people of Iran is anyone's guess.

So there is one mighty struggle going on for control of territory and oil. THAT, leaving aside Israel, is the underlying reason for all the conflict in the middle east. Over the entire course of the last century the western powers have been meddling and interferring in Muslim countries because thats where the easy oil has been. Now that easy oil around the world is coming to an end, the ordinary people are asserting their right to a greater share of the oil wealth that remains.

The militant islamist attacks we see might use religion. But the underlying cause is a reaction to our interference in the middle east. The jihadists might be doing it for Allah, but they're also doing it to wrest control away from the local governments we have imposed on them. Osama bin Laden doesnt want to force us all to become Muslim, he wants western power out of the middle east, in particular Saudi Arabia. And he uses religion as a very powerful weapon to accomplish this.

George Bush said America was addicted to oil. Its true. Unfortunately addicts find it very difficult to give up the habit. But ultimately we will be forced to adjust to the post peak oil world. Its just a matter of whether we do it intelligently or not.

So we are

Dependent on oil to fuel our economies which supports our high standard of living
We have become addicts and failed to take steps to kick the habit.
The oil supply is limited
The demand is soaring
So we are fighting for control of what remains
And the militant islamists are doing the same
And just as an after thought, we shouldnt even be burning fossil fuels because its screwing up the earth's climate for our grandchildren.

Happy week end everyone.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 12:27 am
Steve, I am surprised your analysis is somewhat reasonable. Your understanding of oil, where it comes from, and the brutal truth about how the curves are crossing now, is correct, one curve being world oil production, the other being rising demand. Your observation of the inescapable likelihood of struggles surrounding this crunch as to who controls this energy is a very important one.

I am going to slant my argument by sticking up for us. First of all, we have paid dearly for every last drop of oil from the Middle East. Secondly, we do possess the military power to literally try to take over the countries and the oilfields, and if we had been ruled in a different manner than we are, perhaps we would have done that. Instead, we are benevolent, and have not done that. I agree, we have meddled in the affairs of the countries you mention, but lets face it, those countries have not been particularly progressive in terms of ruling themselves peacefully and efficiently, and they would be wise to learn from more peaceful and successful free societies than themselves.

The oil companies that helped them begin development of their oilfields decades ago included many American corporations with our expertise sent there to do it. They invited it and they have greatly profited from it. A willing buyer from willing sellers, so in many ways we have helped them immensely along with buying the oil that we desired and needed. If they allow their own leaders to rule corruptly and make themselves rich without helping the masses, then that was not our fault, it was rather their culture and corruption that caused that.

So if you are implying the Muslims and Osama Bin Laden have legitimate reasons to resort to terrorism, I think you are wrong. OPEC could simply refuse to sell us the oil right now, and what could we do about it, probably not much. The truth is they are very happy to sell the oil. As for our meddling in their affairs causing all of their troubles, I think that is wrong. They've had troubles long before we ever did anything there. I think the real reason for them coming after us is the failure of their own culture that produces the bad results that it does. Instead of identifying their own real problem, they instead look for another scapegoat, but what is so different about that from basic human nature?

I agree we need to try to avoid imported oil. Just talking about it is no solution, but we've had politicians talking about it for decades now, and Carter's government fix was an utter failure, as most government fixes are. Every president in recent memory has talked about this in their speeches, but nothing substantial happens to affect the reality of economics and technology. I am of the opinion that the free market is the only viable appproach to fixing the problem, and I also believe this process will be market driven over the next few decades.

As to what we've done wrong so far, I think allowing the tree huggers to kill the expansion of nuclear power was a big mistake. And we continue to make the mistake of disallowing drilling in environmentally sensitive areas within our own country. And inasmuch as our current income tax system can be used to encourage alternative fuels, it should be used. Every new home that incorporates self sufficiency into its design should be given bigger tax breaks, and perhaps bigger tax breaks should be given for all kinds of things that are fuel efficient, including gas saving vehicles. Ultimately however, I think the cost of fuel will be the ultimate driver of change or conversion to more conservation and innovation.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 07:38 am
okie wrote:
There would be carnage in the streets. But Free Duck, what evidence do you have that a warming of 2 or 3 degrees will reduce the food supply? In fact, I think good arguments exist that it would increase it.


I'm not talking about warming. You mentioned somewhat recent catastrophic volcanic eruptions. The biggest recent one I know of was krakatoa, whose eruption caused a mini-ice-age which disrupted the food supply.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 07:41 am
I agree with Steve.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 06:42:23