Hot Arctic

[runawayjim]

for the record, i am not of the position that we need to ignore it completely and keep going like we're going.

i am of the position that the studies thus far do not show conclusive evidence towards any one cause for global warming aside from the destruction of the rain forests. and yes, i don't know who said it, but the rain forests in south america do absorb the carbon dioxide released in the united states. the air moves, does it not?

i am also of the position that we should not completely kill our economy and shift the world's greatest economies to those of the nations who are just starting to industrialize (china for one) who will simply go and overtake us in emissions quite easily, and it won't be the cars that's causing it... as you can tell from that picture that someone posted in a thread of the smog in china where 99% of the vehicles in the picture were bicycles.

environmentalists don't care about the economy, economists don't care about the environment... there's a middle ground and neither side of the debate is reaching it... that's where my view is, and this is why it is more of a political debate than anyone would like to admit. our current president who promised to push research into alternative fuels has yet to do so 6 years later. save the environment, by all means, but the flip side of what many have said... what good is the environment when there's no economy and we're all living on the streets except for an elite few?

there is a middle ground. it has yet to be reached or agreed upon. until that happens, the debate will go around in circles. the environment cannot be saved and global warming cannot be stopped (as many have also said, it's a cyclical occurrence and we're in a warming period now regardless of what humans have done). the only thing we can do is slow down what we're causing. the easiest way to do that is to stop destruction of the rain forests. while we're doing that, we can bring down the cost of alternative fuels.

[damus]

there is a middle ground. it has yet to be reached or agreed upon. until that happens, the debate will go around in circles. the environment cannot be saved and global warming cannot be stopped (as many have also said, it's a cyclical occurrence and we're in a warming period now regardless of what humans have done). the only thing we can do is slow down what we're causing. the easiest way to do that is to stop destruction of the rain forests. while we're doing that, we can bring down the cost of alternative fuels.

[GRDadof3]

Just curious, but what is the political agenda of say a climate scientist working for a university? If he or she is not beholden to some corporate association who has a dog in the race, but merely teaches students, writes the occasional textbook, etc then I'm not sure what he/she is going to gain by saying that global warming is real and caused by humans or real but a natural phenomenon. Would Jim Hansen lose his post at Columbia or NASA if he came out against Global Warming? And, why is it that with Hansen it only became political when a Bush administration kid who hadn't even graduated from Texas A&M and had no background in science was instructed to limit Professor Hansen's contact with the media and edit his writing?

Universities and research institutes are beholden to grants and scientific journals. You have to assume that human nature being the way it is, that when the hypercompetitive nature of a research environment meets millions of dollars of grant money and the possibility of being published, that sometimes people will break. That is where "agenda" rears its ugly head.

[scman473]

for the record, i am not of the position that we need to ignore it completely and keep going like we're going.

i am of the position that the studies thus far do not show conclusive evidence towards any one cause for global warming aside from the destruction of the rain forests. and yes, i don't know who said it, but the rain forests in south america do absorb the carbon dioxide released in the united states. the air moves, does it not?

So, you think that all CO2 moves to the rainforests before going up into the atmosphere like it normally does? Wow, thats a good one.

there is a middle ground. it has yet to be reached or agreed upon. until that happens, the debate will go around in circles. the environment cannot be saved and global warming cannot be stopped (as many have also said, it's a cyclical occurrence and we're in a warming period now regardless of what humans have done). the only thing we can do is slow down what we're causing. the easiest way to do that is to stop destruction of the rain forests. while we're doing that, we can bring down the cost of alternative fuels.

You are correct here though. We are in a warming period, but it is happening way sooner and faster than it should be.

[intcvlcphlga]

I am in agreement. We should save the rainforest. While we're at it, maybe we should go back to the forest conservation measures put into place during the Clinton Administration and slow down logging in our own country. Our forests suck carbon dioxide out of the air and their right here. If it's not right to have the rest of the world tell the US to clean up their act when it comes to carbon emissions especially if there's a double standard for China and India, then why do we have the right to tell Brazil how they should handle their rain forests? Wouldn't that be the Libertarian stance?

[monsoon]

In fact, Brazil has made this very argument. They point out the entire east coast of the USA was deforested in the process of building this country. So they say, the USA has no place in telling them what to do with "their" rainforest. The bottom line is that much of the rain forest is being deforested in producing products that are happily bought by the US consumer. (same old story) The latest is the trend for people to floor their McMansions with exotic wood from Brazil.

(Tthere are only 1 or 2 places east of the Mississippi where one can go view virgin forestland)

[runawayjim]

the point i was trying to make is that there is no single country that is more responsible than any other for the human impact on global warming. it's pointless for us to go and cut back our emissions and let other countries release more and allow the rain forests to be wiped out... the same worldly effect is the result of this. it's an all or nothing issue, which is why i said there's a middle ground that needs to be found that will be more acceptable solution to developing countries.

[Recchia]

Four reasons why we're not scared of global warming

I love this article courtesy of Planetizen. It's mostly opinion and won't add to this debate, but I thought I'd post it anyway. It says a lot about what we value in this country....

My favorite part:

Yes, global warming is bad, but it doesn't make us feel nauseated or angry or disgraced, and thus we don't feel compelled to rail against it as we do against other momentous threats to our species, such as flag burning. The fact is that if climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets.

[intcvlcphlga]

the point i was trying to make is that there is no single country that is more responsible than any other for the human impact on global warming. it's pointless for us to go and cut back our emissions and let other countries release more and allow the rain forests to be wiped out... the same worldly effect is the result of this. it's an all or nothing issue, which is why i said there's a middle ground that needs to be found that will be more acceptable solution to developing countries.

So, to sum up your whole argument, he who dies with the most toys wins (and, no one is going to stand in our way, as Americans, at having the most toys when the armageddon hits).

[runawayjim]

So, to sum up your whole argument, he who dies with the most toys wins (and, no one is going to stand in our way, as Americans, at having the most toys when the armageddon hits).

i don't know how you got that from what i said. i said it's a world issue, not an american issue. the emissions from the USA affect the world as a whole. the destruction of the rain forests affect the world as a whole. if the USA cleans up our emissions by enacting laws that highly limit them, it will cost a lot more for manufacturing here and plants will simply be moved to developing countries that don't follow those laws and they will release the same amount, if not more emissions. is that really that hard to understand? and those emissions will affect the USA even though we have cleaned up our emissions. it's simply passing the buck if we don't work on the global level. however, i don't think that most developing countries will want to sign onto anything that creates drastic change or is very expensive, which is why a middle ground must be sought.

[scman473]

First, you guys go against NASA and now your going against the National Science Foundation, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Here is proof that fossil fuels are causing global warming and threatning our oceans: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ry/Science/home and here too:http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/04...acid/index.html

-It was also in my local paper this morning too, but I couldn't find it on the internet. Now you guys know I am right about fossil fuels and you are wrong. The debate is freaking over. Fossil fuels are causing most of the global warming, not rainforest destruction even though it is causing a small percentage of it like somewhere between 15 and 25 percent.

[runawayjim]

First, you guys go against NASA and now your going against the National Science Foundation, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Here is proof that fossil fuels are causing global warming and threatning our oceans: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/04...acid/index.html and here too: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ry/Science/home

-Now you guys know I am right about fossil fuels and you are wrong. The debate is freaking over. Fossil fuels are causing most of the global warming, not rainforest destruction even though it is causing a small percentage of it like somewhere between 15 and 25 percent.

CNN tends to put a liberal spin in their reports.

[scman473]

So, your telling me that NOAA and the U.S. Geological Survey are liars?

[runawayjim]

So, your telling me that NOAA and the U.S. Geological Survey are liars?

no, but that report is from cnn.com, not noaa.gov or usgs.gov

[scman473]

no, but that report is from cnn.com, not noaa.gov or usgs.gov

Oh, did you check the other story I posted along with the CNN one? That's probably why. The CNN one doesn't say noaa or usgs, only the other one does.

[runawayjim]

Oh, did you check the other story I posted along with the CNN one? That's probably why. The CNN one doesn't say noaa or usgs, only the other one does.

you must've edited it after i replied... i didn't originally see the other one.

[scman473]

you must've edited it after i replied... i didn't originally see the other one.

That would be why. My bad. Ok, we all agree that global warming is happening, but we are debating on what is actually causing it more.

[Recchia]

That would be why. My bad. Ok, we all agree that global warming is happening, but we are debating on what is actually causing it more.

Yes and the answer is, NONE OF US KNOW. Different scientists say different things, different sources say different things. This thread is going nowhere. Yes there are both natural and man-made causes of global warming. We get it. Now lets stop cutting down trees and lower emissions and maybe it can at least curtail the man made causes.

[scman473]

Yes and the answer is, NONE OF US KNOW. Different scientists say different things, different sources say different things. This thread is going nowhere. Yes there are both natural and man-made causes of global warming. We get it. Now lets stop cutting down trees and lower emissions and maybe it can at least curtail the man made causes.

You are dead right.

[damus]

Yes and the answer is, NONE OF US KNOW. Different scientists say different things, different sources say different things. This thread is going nowhere. Yes there are both natural and man-made causes of global warming. We get it. Now lets stop cutting down trees and lower emissions and maybe it can at least curtail the man made causes.

These threads usually don't go anywhere if what you're looking for is everyone to come to a conclusion and agree to it. There will never be a consensus among us with anything that is politically charged. The best one can hope for is to learn from the opposing points of view.

How do you suppose we're going to go about stopping the destruction of forests, most importanly the tropical rainforests, and lowering emissions while not sacrificing our economic well being when compared with the rest of the world?

[Recchia]

These threads usually don't go anywhere if what you're looking for is everyone to come to a conclusion and agree to it. There will never be a consensus among us with anything that is politically charged. The best one can hope for is to learn from the opposing points of view.

No sh!t

How do you suppose we're going to go about stopping the destruction of forests, most importanly the tropical rainforests, and lowering emissions while not sacrificing our economic well being when compared with the rest of the world?

We as a world, not just the U.S. And I have no friggen clue, I'm not an economist, or a climatologist. Leave that to the experts that get paid to do this stuff.

[damus]

No sh!t

If you get it, then why do you keep coming into threads to say that they are pointless?

We as a world, not just the U.S. And I have no friggen clue, I'm not an economist, or a climatologist. Leave that to the experts that get paid to do this stuff.

You don't suppose us "armchair climatologists" as someone else put it should just let someone else worry about the problems? I think it's in the best interest of everyone to try and form a somewhat educated opinion of the important issues. Too many people are uninformed and vote knowing nothing about who or what they're voting for or against. I think discussions like this one are the what makes America great. People can voice their opinions, listen to others', and hopefully between everything come out knowing more about a particular subject than they did before.

[Recchia]

I think a bunch of people blabbing on about this and that with global warming is pointless. None of us really know the truth.

And maybe some threads aren't pointless, but rather their point is just stupid. Is anyone really learning anything from this thread? No, we're just linking to this website and that website, each one saying a different thing.

[monsoon]

No, we're just linking to this website and that website, each one saying a different thing.

I tend to agree. Some people here are unable to do their own thinking and insist on posting websites to prove their point. It's one think to discuss and debate this topic, what has been happening here is quite different.

[monsoon]

This thread is now open again. Please respect the others. Please have a discussion/debate. This means that you don't get into a battle of the links. Thanks.