Posted on 12/02/2004 10:33:15 AM PST by Marine_Uncle
Kilimanjaro is a volcano that is beleived to be about one million years old. That means the current glacier covered Kilimanjaro for 12,000 years, or about 0.012% of its lifetime. Kilimanjaro has been without a glacier before, and chances are it will be without a glacier again.
"I don't know why everyone likes to pick at me when I am essentially agreeing with most of you."
Not picking at you, just your arguments. You agree that there's no science to support action, yet you advocate action. That's a logical inconsistency, which doesn't sit well.
"When did I ever say we need to take radical steps to change our ways based on something we cannot prove? I haven't."
Not to start a "who struck John first", but I didn't say anything about "radical steps", either.
"The fact is we have multiple compunds coming into the system from multiple sources, and their synergistic effect is relatively unknown."
No no no no no no no. There is no such thing as a "synergistic" effect. If what you mean is that there may be unpredictable reactions in certain combinations of compounds, fine. If you suspect such a combination contributes to climate change, toss it out there and test it. Basing action on the mere possibility of the existence of such an effect is silly.
" it seems a big part of the arguements come from a capitalist perspective. Isn't one of the goals of capitalism (though often indirect) efficiency? All I am saying is that we should strive to do things in the most efficent manner possible. After all the vast majority of these compounds are byproducts. Why not strive to reduce the wanton discharge of such compounds?"
Efficiency is not a goal of capitalism unless efficiency is economically desirable. We can design an internal combustion-powered automobile that attains in excess of 100 MPG. It would unquestionably be the most "efficient" vehicle on the market. However, the cost of manufacture, safety, and comfort of such a vehicle make it economically undesirable. The reduction of the "byproducts" you reference costs money. If I gain little or no demonstrable economic or environmental benefit from such reduction, what is the incentive to spend the money?
Atlas Shrugged.
I was talking to a person about how much my family enjoys Glacier National Park, and she expressed how much she was alarmed that the glaciers are melting, and how we have to do something about it RIGHT NOW! She absolutely would not believe me when I pointed out that they've been melting for over 10,000 years. You can't argue with people who refuse to recognize facts.
The Kyoto protocol and every other chicken little proposal is 100% politically driven. It makes no more sense to assert that people affect world climate in any significant way than to say people affect tectonic movements and volcanc activity, or sunspots.
By my estimate, there are around 146,099,000 days in 400,000 years so... sure, we can make life miserable for 6 billion people based on one hot summer or two.
Makes sense to me!
< /sarcasm >
Now, if I wanted to be one of those ponderous scientific people, and "let on" to prove what had occurred in the remote past by what had occurred in a given time in the recent past, or what will occur in the far future by what has occurred in late years, what an opportunity is here! Geology never had such a chance, nor such exact data to argue from! Nor "development of species," either! Glacial epochs are great things, but they are vague--vague. Please observe:--
In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oölitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi, Chapter XVII (Pg 209)
Not unless they are all rocketted into outer space.
Every single atom that was ever on earth (since it cooled, of course) is still here, and as I undestand it, we pick up a little additional mass each year.
So, "wasteful" in what way, exactly?
I have three dogs, twice a week I pick up two gallons of dog hair and four pounds of particulate matter that has obediently settled on every surface within the confines of my abode.
The article is correct based on the existing data.
http://www.iceagenow.com/
Wasteful in that you are using compound 'ABC' combined with compound 'DEF' to get product ABDE. Compounds C and F are byproducts that are not used by said manufactuer. Essentially the company is paying for C and F as parts of each original compound. The discharge of those 'unused' compounds is wasteful in production efficiency sense and the economic sense. It's kinda like buying a whole pig and only 'using' the ribs. mmmm ribs! Would it not be in everyone's best interest to be able to use coumpounds C and F? I'm not infering that this can be done in every case but it is something we should strive for. A smart business model would at least explore the option.
Absolutely - the only thing she did not foresee was that the politicos would hide behind environmentalism to accomplish their socialistic goals. But her premises were dead nuts on.
The reason is because the Global Warming crowd is out to destroy our very existence. Their goal is nothing short of brining down the U.S. You need to understand that their position is totally without scientific merit. Therefore, to show ANY position that can be twisted by "them" to indicate support cannot be promulgated. Their goals are as evil as the terrorists and socialist everywhere. I don't care one bit about climate change because any cursory reading on the topic shows the Earth goes through many such changes (long before man was around) At it's core the Global Warming crowd is totally political. Therefore, it would be wise to repudiate them at every turn. That is why you are seemingly attacked somewhat passionately. You just don't seem to understand how dangerous their positions are to our future.
The "global warming" hoax is being used as a political device designed to stampede governments into making unwise, precipitous, and pernicious policy changes they would otherwise not make. The "principle of prudence" or whatever they're calling it these days says: "Don't do anything; something might happen." So you are paralyzed into zero progress--something the 'greens' have devotely wished for since the word was coined.
--Boris
Thanks for posting this gem. Even Twain was onto the environuts, back before they even existed.
Oh no. It is much more than that. They wish to return humanity to living in mud huts and scratching in the soil for grubs. Not only the U.S. Humanity.
As I like to put it: "They are not pro-nature; they are anti-human."
One of their spokespersons (I forget the name) actually said he wished for a global virus to wipe out humanity, for the sake of "Gaia".
--Boris
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.