Posted on 02/02/2007 9:50:11 AM PST by ml/nj
I would like to see this point made more often. You've reminded me of an exchange I had with one of our young, liberal engineers.
A conversation led him to ask "Well what do you think causes global warming?" I simply answered "The Sun." After many seconds of stunned silence, he followed up with "No, I mean what is causing the temperature to change?"
That gave me an opening to start talking about Solar variability (I had to explain the difference between insolation and insulation), orbital dynamics, plate tectonics, and the physics of CO2's solubility in water. (I'm not an expert in these areas, but do know hundreds of times more than the average bozo.)
He's actually an intelligent young man, just ignorant and brainwashed, so it took about 1/2 hour before he started to feel overwhelmed, and stopped me.
By the way, here's a good resource that shows 400,000+ year correlation between global average temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels: http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html#more.
The interesting thing is that the correlation is strongest for a timelag of about 1,000 years from a temperature change to a change in CO2 levels.
First - the poison is in the dose.
Too much water is fatal, as recently proved by some LibChick drinking too much water in a radio station sponsored contest.
Dihydrogen monoxidean can kill you! ! ! !
Second - That which you negatively describe as "pollution", like CO2 and sewerage, are essential or very useful to others and other life forms (like plants).
A good rule is that if AL Gore is for it, the facts are probably against it, and so should be you.
Go tell it to the Chinese... As for me, I notice that the air & water are cleaner than when I was a kid here in Pennsylvania -- probably because they closed the steel mills, but I digress.
BTW, let me know how the picketting goes over in Tienanmen.
You are all missing the point. The SHEEPLE now believe that human activity is responsible for an increase in planetary temperature. The question is how I/we can profit from this new belief. Goldman Sachs has stated that they are going to invest $1-2 BILLION in enviromentally friendly business ventures. I have already purchased stock in VESTAS(they make those big wind mills). Where else should we be putting our money to capitalize on this new trend ?
The horror!
No kidding. How many humans populated North America prior to the arrival of Columbus? We don't know, but I think that it's safe to say that all the good spots were highly populated, and therefore polluted by pre-industrial, Native Americans. That's one reason for a nomadic lifestyle.
A return to a pre-industrial lifestyle would necessitate a great contraction in World population. And that wouldn't exactly be painless, either.
Are you really trying to say that pollution is good? I'm not so concerned with global warming as I am with clean air to breathe. You have to wonder when kids born in urban areas are more likely to develop asthma.
Whether the ideas come from wackos or not, clean air and alternative fuels SHOULD be what we work towards. Constant turmoil in the Middle East and breathable air is a good enough reason for me.
What is the downside of lowering pollution and seeking alternative fuels?
I'll repost this because I can't believe you're trying to tell me that air pollution is good.
Whether the ideas come from wackos or not, clean air and alternative fuels SHOULD be what we work towards. Constant turmoil in the Middle East and breathable air is a good enough reason for me.
What is the downside of lowering pollution and seeking alternative fuels?
bump
The ICE caps are not shrinking, they are growing. Greenlands glaciers are not shrinking, they are growing.
All the more food for the Orcas (which are also adored by environmentalists). In addition, seals and walruses will have less predators...
I just can't buy that thousands upon thousands of scientists from every corner of the world are part of some liberal conspiracy to stir up panic about global warming.
I see no downside in reducing or even ending our dependence on fossil fuels. This should have been done years ago.
I hate starbucks and I don't drive a Volvo.
"Even if you dont believe in global warming you must admit that pollution is a BAD thing right?"
Is it? Or could the danger be in the dose?
2 things to consider:
1. we insulate buildings now like nobodies business. There's a term for it "Unhealthy Building Syndrome".
2. the doctors are 'looking for asthma' like never before. A few years ago when my niece & nephew were in pre-school there was a rash of "ear tubes" to prevent chronic ear infections. In my day it was tonciles.
Never underestimate societies ability to tie itself in knots.
Then sell your car and quit taking any form of public transportation. Walk, or ride a bike. That will reduce dependance on Abiotic oil, which bubbles up all by itswelf all over the place, in the sea, on the land, polluting as nature intended it to, so using it instead will help keep the land and water clean.
Don't be a hypocrate, reducing oil consuption starts with you. Don't whine about it if YOU are still using it.
And it WILL have a huge downside. Our entire economy depends on oil, manufacturing, thousands of by products, pipes, plastics, medicines etc.
I will keep burning as much as i can, because I live in the country, walking is out of the question. I live in a cold climate, I need heat or I will freeze to death.
The whole world will NOT fit into your perspective of it from the balcony of your apartment in California where you have a tropical climate.
P.S. The air and water is very clean where I live, I don't see any polution problem anywhere. It's probably a LOCAL problem where you live. :o)
It's not a conspiracy so much as "group-think". Scientist & professors must get published in peer-reviewed journals. It's a treadmill that doesn't reward creative thinking so much as contributing a minor detail to an established line of research. If you question the basic underlying assumption of the research (fetal stem cells?) you may risk you career prospects.
Uh...where's the WIDE SHOT?
Showing just how "stranded" they are?
Check the Jan. 2nd WSJ and you'll find the Polar Bear population is larger than ever!
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.