MY Carbon Footprint is Bigger Than Yours

[Dukemeister]

Just to bring us back on topic.

Kensai, alot of your points are just as inclined to political rhetoric as they accuse Crichton of being. You also have to stop confusing climate change and weather variation, with CO2 increase. The two are not one and the same thing and are in no way proven to be interlinked, despite what the news may have you believe.

Heres some straight facts which have no political agenda and have come straight out of my advanced biology textbook:

- CO2 makes up about 0.038% of the atmosphere, and has increased by something in the region of .008% over the last 70 years or so.
- It is the relatively least effective greenhouse gas (in terms of how much reflected radiation it actually absorbs)

- Water vapour accounts for up to 90% of the greenhouse effect in the earths atmosphere.
- Its concentration in the atmosphere constantly varies between 1 and 4%.


So, from this we see that water vapour concentration varies the most, and is also the most effective greenhouse gas in terms of reflected radiation absorbed. Fact.

Yet, we are still prompted to believe that a very very minor increase in one of the atmosphere's least effective greenhouse gases is the cause for changes in climate and temperature over the last few decades, and the predicted cause of catastrophic changes in weather patterns worldwide.

Hmmmmmm.

[Gyberg]

When people tell you that you need to change your way of life people tend to get pissed. And reading some of these posts make you think that all of the jokes about americans are true.

Anyone can pull facts out of their ass to prove their thesis, but it's common sense to understand that if you keep using all of the planets resources this fast things are going to change.

[General_J0k3r]

i don't know what the fuss is all about. what's the problem with getting rid of oil dependency? the only ones that got a problem with that are the oil companies...

[Taffy]

Global warming is a load of rubbish. Sure, our climate is changing. But why do we expect it to be stable? It's NEVER been stable. The icecaps have grown and shrunk throughout time. 'Climate change' is perfectly normal. I don't see what all the fuss is about. COWS produce more CO2 than we do, for Christ's sake!

Sure, reduce your emissions, because it saves money. But don't be stupid and refuse to drive or fly or turn on lights because it damages the environment. Because, at the end of the day, there is NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF that it does. Global warming is a THEORY, not a FACT. People just assume that it is the correct theory because the media says so.

Originally Posted by Kensei

Mr. Crichton picks evidence that supports his position and then sprinkles this data throughout the novel.

Well, that's exactly what PRO-global warming scientists do. Except they deliberately alter their data to make into what they want to see. Nearly all of the 'global warming' modules that these scientists use are based on an annual increase of 1% to the amount of CO2 we have produced. NEVER, in human history, have we increased our carbon output by 1% in a single year. NEVER. So your telling me that pro-warming scientists are reliable, yet anti-warming ones aren't?

I also find it remarkable when people point at anti-warming scientists and shout 'CORRUPT!' because they have accepted funds from oil companies. Virtually ALL of the pro-warming scientists are funded by...governments. Who are also pro-warming. Which makes those scientists as corrupt as those taking money off of oil companies.

Originally Posted by General_J0k3r

i don't know what the fuss is all about. what's the problem with getting rid of oil dependency? the only ones that got a problem with that are the oil companies...

Er... without oil, we are basically screwed. No cars, no planes, no public transport, huge black-outs etc. etc. Oh, and Armed Forces would also be buggered. Tanks would become stationary turrets. Jeeps wouldn't go anywhere. Logistics would come to a standstill. Air support would be a thing of the past. You couldn't cross the sea. The only way to get to Europe from America, for example, would be to ring up the vikings and ask to borrow some longboats. Then again, you couldn't do that, because chances are you'd be in the middle of a blackout. You see, oil is pretty important at the moment.

[Gyberg]

Originally Posted by Taffy

I also find it remarkable when people point at anti-warming scientists and shout 'CORRUPT!' because they have accepted funds from oil companies. Virtually ALL of the pro-warming scientists are funded by...governments. Who are also pro-warming. Which makes those scientists as corrupt as those taking money off of oil companies.

Ok, what does the pro-governments ahve to lose/win on scientists saying that global warming is a problem? And what does the oilcompanies win/lose on scientists claiming that it isn't a problem?
It's kind of obvious....

Originally Posted by Taffy

Er... without oil, we are basically screwed. No cars, no planes, no public transport, huge black-outs etc. etc. Oh, and Armed Forces would also be buggered. Tanks would become stationary turrets. Jeeps wouldn't go anywhere. Logistics would come to a standstill. Air support would be a thing of the past. You couldn't cross the sea. The only way to get to Europe from America, for example, would be to ring up the vikings and ask to borrow some longboats. Then again, you couldn't do that, because chances are you'd be in the middle of a blackout. You see, oil is pretty important at the moment.

So there are noooooooo alternate fuel sources? It's all about decreasing the use of oil, not removing it! If we just would lower the consumption that would be a start.

[Taffy]

Originally Posted by Gyberg

Ok, what does the pro-governments ahve to lose/win on scientists saying that global warming is a problem? And what does the oilcompanies win/lose on scientists claiming that it isn't a problem?
It's kind of obvious....

Well, with global warming virtually 'proven', they have a fantastic election campaign weapon. By chanting 'we are greener than the other party', they win huge amounts of votes, and probably get into power. They also then spend huge amounts of taxes on making that country 'greener', so when something goes wrong, like education, or the health service, they can point out just how much they've been spending on ensuring that global catastrophe doesn't happen.

But the most major thing that they gain, and the thing that p****s me off the most, is that they keep power over LEDC's (third world countries to you and I). By demanding that they keep their carbon emissions low, they prevent them from developing. This is because renewable energy sources are very expensive and the third world cannot afford them. How does this make sure that the 1st world has power over them? Well, if the third world cannot develop, it cannot climb out of poverty, so whenever they do something that the 1st world doesn't like, the 1st world just 'reminds' them how much money they owe, and the third world backs down.

Originally Posted by Gyberg

So there are noooooooo alternate fuel sources? It's all about decreasing the use of oil, not removing it! If we just would lower the consumption that would be a start.

Oh sure, there are. I mean, we could always bung a load of coal into our tanks and send them chugging into battle, right?

Or we could power them with fuel cells. Sure, it would mean cutting spending on nearly EVERY other part of public services, but hey, at least we are cutting our fuel emissions.

I'm all for developing alternative fuel methods, but until they are suitable, we should not use them. It's madness.

Another interesting point is that the new Toyota hybrid car is actually one of the MOST harmful cars to the environment, in terms of it's 'dust-to-dust life', which basically means from when they first start building it to when they get rid of it. It takes a HUGE amount of energy to produce, its takes even more energy to produce the battery, it isn't particularly fuel efficient, it isn't safe to drive, and when it's dead, what do you do with the battery, which is still full of nasty, horrible chemicals? Why, you BURY it of course! What a brilliant idea! *Cough*

[Gyberg]

It's not about changing your fuel source overnight, it's about making people aware so that people are willing to increase the funding for research and so that we in the future become less dependant on oil.

About the prius (toyotas hybrid car) I think you brought up a good point because alot of people dont look at the production stages. But we need to start somewhere, and toyota managed to show other companies that it's possible to make a profit with more enviromental friendly cars. In the future the production might be more enviromental friendly when we have developed our technology further, the important thing is that Toyota actually took the step over the edge.

About the LEDC's the US is one of the biggest polluters in the world and if the US would lower it's emmissions it would make a big deal, and yeah asia is probably the worst continent but as you pointed out LEDC's will have troubles to cope with enviromental issues. I would say the solution is that we should develop the technology since the development stages are the most expensive. And when we have developed the technology it will be cheaper for the LEDC's to purchase this kind of technology from us since the development is allready done.

I try to think of it this way, we are a bunch of people sitting in a boat. And this boat is leaking, a few of us have meens to make the leaking stop but it's going to be a pain in the ass to do it. And the others dont have the means to stop the leak and maybe isn't even aware of the boat leaking.
Now whats happening is that half of the people that have the means tyo stop the leak are working their asses of trying to stop it but the other half dont even try because they are to lazy and dont realise that if we dont start to work as a team soon we'll all be in the water.

[Dukemeister]

Gyberg,

the slight problem in your analogy is the assumption that

A) We caused it and

B) We can do something about it.

Neither of which have been proven, or any real evidence found for at all.

The only reason there is any so called 'evidence' at all for global warming is because there is a massive incentive for scientists to research it. Money comes pouring in for scientists that mention something about global warming in their upcoming experiment no matter what it is. If you want to investigate something unrelated to global warming then you are buggered. Simple as that. You will get no funding from anyone, and your scientific research will be dead in the water. This is clear politicization of science and is a massive hindarence to the scientific community worldwide. It is also the reason that you will find that most anti-warming scientists are retired and therefore no longer need to aquire grant money or funding for their research

The whole thing is pseudoscience and until someone gives me or the world some real definitive proof that we are causing global warming (probably more likely to be from the methane in cow farts than CO2) then i will leap upon the self-righteous bandwagon. Until then, consider me staunchly against all this hype.

[SiN|ScarFace]

Why should we bail water when to us, the boat is not leaking and you can't prove it is, you must be hallucinating.

[Gyberg]

In my analogy there is no assumption that we caused the leak, and would it matter if someone else have caused it in that analogy? I mean the boat would still sink.

As for scarface, you cant prove that it's not can you? So why take the chance? And what bad can come from, over time, trying to be less dependant on fossile fuel?