Climate Change

As always Buck, as always. And I freely admit my own guilt in part of it.

I wish we could have an intelligent, open-minded discussion about stuff like this. But there are just too many closed minds, on both sides, for that to happen.

 

Well, if you want to have an intelligent conversation about this, let me be the first to offer my thoughts.

1. I am under the impression that this so-called warming period has lasted longer and has climbed more sharply than in the past. But I base this only on what I recall from the Al Gore film.

2. I believe scientists are more equipped to answer questions about the planet than your average Joe.

3. I believe scientists can be corrupted when their work is tied to those who stand to make a buck off the green movement and those who stand to lose their asses if global warming proves to be true.

4. I see absolutely no harm in playing it safe when it comes to this topic.

5. Regardless of what it does to the temperature of the planet, pollution is a nasty problem that is causing the quality of the world's oxygen to decline.

6. The decimation of the world's forests will reduce the amount of oxygen that is released into the air and will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that is gobbled up.

7. Didn't I read that President George W. Bush, the Decider, had a role in rewriting a report on global warming to downplay the overwhelming belief among scientists that global warming is a dangerous threat to life on the planet?

8. Aren't the poles drifting anyway, which might account for some of the glacial melting?

9. Didn't I read that some Alaskan and Canadian tribes, among others, are having a difficult time finding food because the landscape surrounding their villages is changing so rapidly?

10. Doesn't a fair portion of this issue split down party lines? If so, why could that be and what could the liberal side have to gain from championing the cause of reducing pollution and CO2 emissions? Are they looking to buy up Aqua Net stocks when they hit an all-time low?

 

I don't either.

I'd think each generation would want to leave the environment in good standing for the next. The Iroquois used to consider how each major tribal decision would affect the next seven generations. We'd do well to follow their lead when it comes the environment.

 

Oh, I think we've got a good idea now who the missing link is.

Seriously, do you fall down a lot?

 

Fortunately, the Iroquois didn't believe in a man in the sky who will scoop up all the true believers no matter how badly they fuck up their planet or their fellow man.

And I doubt they'd vote a person believing in such silliness into their highest office where he would make decisions that could affect generations.

 

Thought you all might enjoy looking at the comments on this Milwaukee Journal Sentinel online forum with comments from Friday's UN scare-tactic report.

http://www2.jsonline.com/content/forum/global_warming.asp

I especially liked this comment:

Think about it for a second.. The earth has 2/3 of its surface covered by oceans. Of the remaining 1/3 that is land, less that 5% is occupied by mankind. That is roughly 1.65% of the earth. From this less than 2% of the earth's surface, mankind is irreversibly altering their climate? Isn't that a little arrogant? To think that we could change the world's climate by altering tailpipe or smokestack emissions on less than 1/50th of the planet's surface is flat earth thinking indeed.

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, accounting for as much as 70% of the total. Man would not be wise to tinker with that, or we may find ourselves on an arid planet. Carbon dioxide is shown to be between 9-25% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Should we revert to a third world lifestyle to change a small percent of those gasses by a small percent, and expect big results? That is silly.

 

I don't fall down at all, little dong. But then again, I'm not 8-years-old like you.

 

Despite the childish bullshit going on with this thread, I think climate change is an important topic.

Regardless of whether you think it's natural or man-made, it's a huge problem. If it continues at its current pace, entire cities will be lost due to rising ocean levels and the planet's ecology will be tremendously affected. That, in turn, will have a substantial impact on everyone living on the planet.

Can hundreds of scientists from dozens of countries all be part of a political conspiracy to present a one-sided view of things? I guess so, but more important than who's at fault is what we're going to do to adapt.

If the scientists are right, I don't see humanity as being able to change its ways. There are so many political factors in play - China almost produces as much CO2 as the U.S. and isn't likely to buy into the 'save the Earth' cause - that I can't see a big kumbaya coming along to have a dramatic effect on man-made global warming factors. If anything I'm more afraid of the politics of global warming resulting in a world war.

The scientists already say this warming trend will continue for the next century regardless of what's done to the man-made factors. If that's the case there's plenty of time for debate as to who's at fault and whether we can alter the process in the long run.

In the meantime the real challenge will be adaptation.

 

Oh yeah, you hate to repeat yourself. Ch-ching. Another buck.

 

And I was proven correct.
Only Tony didn't let me down. He's dumber than we all originally thought.

 

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19225804.300-climate-change-sceptics-lose-vital-argument.html