Environmental change? - Page 2 - Orchid Board

Marco · #11 11-05-2006, 12:42 AM

you might disagree with the whole global warming bit but my point of opinion was as to why the world will be ending in 50-75 years...and its through the fact of global warming or the fact that we will be chokinng on our own excrements... which is a reply to darrens original post questioning wether or not we are killing ourselves. please read on through to the end. if you disagree to my reply to this post with the fact that the ozone nor the byproducts of unnatural devices that are due to limited resources and unlimited human desires wont cause the world to end please provide the reasoning behind it i do enjoy reading other peoples opinions. quoted or not. thank you.

**edit** sorry for the whole bunch of swiss cheese edits everyone.

to clarify a bit on my perspective it is mainly based on unlimited human desires and limited natural resources is the basis all problems. human desires only see the truths, stringing along the idea that the way a person sees the world is how they view themselves.......that concept in and of itself gets very messy theologically and philosophically and i don't want to step on toes so ill keep it at that, they want which i for one know am a victim of because im a greedy bastard and I won't deny that i dont have desires.

ospy - i do agree with the whole the thought of many still have their heads in holes like ostriches because i for one know i still have my head in the hole because i'm part of the problem. its just so hard to let go of. which is sad honestly. i do have bouts with myself because not am i only adding to it but the thought and damage also extends to my loved ones. (it helps keep me off the cigarettes too...lol) biting the bullet is hard but this ostrich needs to live with that thought.

Mahon · #12 11-05-2006, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marco

you might disagree with the whole global warming bit but my point of opinion was as to why the world will be ending in 50-75 years...and its through the fact of global warming or the fact that we will be chokinng on our own excrements... which is a reply to darrens original post questioning wether or not we are killing ourselves. please read on through to the end. if you disagree to my reply to this post with the fact that the ozone nor the byproducts of unnatural devices wont cause the world to end please provide the reasoning behind it i do enjoy reading other peoples opinions. quoted or not. thank you.

The earth will end in 50-75 years? Should we start selling 'The End Is Near' T-shirts now, or wait a few more years to see if the GW theory "cools" down?

Just thought and an opinion...has anyone taken into consideration that there is so much conflicting research, that no one can keep up with the stories? There are even research supporting global warming which conflict, what's up with that, they are supposed to be on the same team!?

I have quite a bit of support for my opinion that global warming does not exist... but why post it? I have no outcome to be expected... it is merely ignorance on my part to even consider discussing GW...

But in a more favorable note supporting global warming, those who would like to take their part in stopping global warming, please sign your vehicles over to me... also, my documented research is now proving that silver, gold, paladium, and platinum are all contributing to global warming. If you would like to do your part in stopping global warming, please send me all your material, and it will be taken care of. Diamonds, Emeralds, Tanzanite, Alexandrite, Rubies, and Saphires are still under careful study of causing global warming. If you would like to do your part in advance, please send them along also... Thank you all,

-Pat

PS: Marco, I am not trying to be offensive, nor am I trying to be rude towards you. You have been a very nice person to talk with, especially on the chat here when I was able to attend... I am merely debating the GW ideas, as many make no sense. The earth goes, and has gone, in cycles. It somehow balances out and keeps on going.

Heather · #13 11-05-2006, 11:02 AM

Oh boy...deja vu!

Marco · #14 11-05-2006, 11:44 AM

deja vu is right. you hit right on the head!

ospylac · #15 11-05-2006, 01:16 PM

Yup, déjà vu to be sure.
Actual outcomes may be nil, but if the conversation is fun, it’s still a worthwhile debate.
Lotsa interesting points coming up, and here’s my afternoon add:
Mahon, you’re right, the Greenland ice fields are getting thicker. But we’re talking about a very slight increase (21 inches added to the nearly 10,000 feet of ice). The thickening is consistent with global warming models: warm air holds more moisture than cold air, and the warmer air masses moving across Greenland are thus carrying more moisture to deposit in the form of snow. At the higher elevations (10,000 feet), there is little fear of warming resulting in melting, just more snow. The same trend is showing up in parts of Antarctica. These high elevation ice flows are places that were historically so cold that they were veritable deserts with almost negligible annual snowfall. At the lower elevations, where the ice meets the ocean is where the melting is most observable. In terms of overall land and ocean area covered in ice, worldwide the trend is sharply downward. For data on the Artic ice thinning, the US Navy has a great dataset generated by submarines passing beneath the ice. Ice there has thinned very significantly (less than half as much ice now versus 50 years ago).
Marco, I agree it’s tough to face up to the need to change. I’m not ready to give up my SUV or living in climate controlled facilities. And no amount of excuses can subtract my contribution to the problem. But, I don’t think it’s the end of the world. Life is resilient. Cockroaches have nothing to worry about. And, technology may yet find a way around the problem.

Marco · #16 11-05-2006, 01:48 PM

ospy - great points on the ice fields. As for the world ending perspective.

I can't help it i can get really negative on perspective sometimes

But you are totally right. Life is resilient

ospylac · #17 11-05-2006, 10:40 PM

Marco- I understand the negativity, its a dark world out there sometimes, thanks for the post!

Mahon, here's my response to another couple of issues you have identified,
The controversy over the existence of Global Warming is occurring in many places, but is largely absent from the recent peer-reviewed scientific literature. Instead the debate on the existence of Global Warming is forwarded by anyone with a contrarian opinion and a big enough pulpit to broadcast it. If you research the most prominent anti-global warming voices, they are broadcasting their point of view via the popular media in the form of books, magazine articles, blogs and websites. This effectively creates the public perception of a scientific controversy where none exists. Tremendous financial incentive exists to fund this form of media. If you discount media from oil industry funded sources, there are few anti-global warming critics left standing. If you then subtract the petroleum geologists who don’t want to lose their jobs, and the well heeled scientists who benefit from large oil related grants, you’re left with the writings of prominent science fiction authors and puzzle designers as the attackers of global warming. These authors recognize that their anti-global warming opinions will raise eyebrows, sell media and increase their personal celebrity.
The real controversy in the scientific community is not over the existence of global warming. It’s basically down to the broad issues of causality and outcomes. In other words, how much of the warming is human caused versus the product of natural climatic variability. The scientific consensus on causation is already in, it’s mostly human related. (see the work of Dr. Naomi Oreskes, in the journal Nature). Secondly, scientists are very concerned with the modeling of possible outcomes of this observed trend. Yet the global warming controversy still exists in the minds of many Americans. Perhaps scientists are too dignified and busy doing their jobs to vocally respond to every pop critic. Certainly, it’s time for more folks to stop questioning the existence of global warming and to start asking where it’s going and how we can best respond to it.
One last parting thought, the issue of the 1970’s “scientific view” that the ice age was upon us. Published in Newsweek, w/o any scientific peer-review, yet this article still gets lots of attention from the popular media.

Magnus A · #18 11-09-2006, 06:50 AM

ospylac: I can only agree with you. The existence of global warming is not a controversy in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. What I understand there are NO peer-review scientific litterature that claim that global warming is NOT coused by man, but there are some that do not take a stand in the question.

Mahon: Please can you give a reference to a scientific peer-review article that confirm your statemante that the increased mean temperature we see is correlated and explained only by an increased activity of our sun?

At last I would like to give an advice for all of you. If you have not seen the film An Inconvinient Truth SE IT! It is though political and made by Al Gore BUT TRY TO SEE PAST the american political system and see the enviromental message. The material and references used are from peer-reviewed papers and is in themself not political in the sense of dem. versus rep.

I can only say that Al Gore at least gives references so it is possible to read for yourself. This is very seldome done by the anti-globalworming loby.......