An Inconvenient Truth: Gore is wrong

According to recent study done by Japanese and European scientists, if the world maintains the present pace of emission controls, then by 2025-2030 the ozone hole on the earth's atmosphere will close out and things will be pretty normal. The only danger to this logic is the massive growth in China and India and some other third world nations which are not so efficient in launching and more importantly implementing the emission control programs.

I think Al Gore would be more wise to channel energies into making colonies on the Moon. No kidding as that is very much possible and would be an excellent source of lots of that are minerals depleting as the earth population rises.
 
Quote from toc:

According to recent study done by Japanese and European scientists, if the world maintains the present pace of emission controls, then by 2025-2030 the ozone hole on the earth's atmosphere will close out and things will be pretty normal. The only danger to this logic is the massive growth in China and India and some other third world nations which are not so efficient in launching and more importantly implementing the emission control programs.

I think Al Gore would be more wise to channel energies into making colonies on the Moon. No kidding as that is very much possible and would be an excellent source of lots of that are minerals depleting as the earth population rises.
More...

Link?
 
Quote from ssternlight:

OK,

At least we are on the same page as to what we are discussing. We just disagree about sources for our respective arguments. Try these links:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

Personally, I think the Wiki entry is well sourced and footnoted. Can you link to something that shows why you think it's not accurate -- i.e. a contrary point of view? Neither of the citations you quoted can be linked directly.
More...

I was a freshman in high school when they were trying to scare heck out of me, initiating "earth day", and all the rest. I need no research on what was going on back then.
 
Quote from ssternlight:

OK,

At least we are on the same page as to what we are discussing. We just disagree about sources for our respective arguments. Try these links:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

Personally, I think the Wiki entry is well sourced and footnoted. Can you link to something that shows why you think it's not accurate -- i.e. a contrary point of view? Neither of the citations you quoted can be linked directly.
More...

Personally, I lean towards the argument that global warming is real, and impacted by human factors. I could certainly be wrong by this view, but that's the view that I lean towards.

That said, my frustration is that the constituancies that push the global warming issue are the same ones that reject most of the solutions for it. Assuming that global warming is, in fact, true and man-made, I view some of the best solutions would be power plants than don't burn hydrocarbons. However, nuclear power is rejected by most of those pushing global warming... Wind power is also rejected ('diminishes my view' and 'kills bats and birds')... Hydroelectric power is similarly rejected (affects the spawning of fish, etc)... I am in favor of the expansion of all of these kinds of <i>non-fossil fuel</i> consuming power production. However, it seems that the only 'solution' that most environmentalist tend to support is widespread bicycle use... Environmentalists and global warming theory supporters, what say ye?
 
Quote from fhl:

I was a freshman in high school when they were trying to scare heck out of me, initiating "earth day", and all the rest. I need no research on what was going on back then.
More...

Well,

If you come across any links you can post pop them up and we can see what they add. I don't find "earth day" to be particularly persuasive or scary for that matter.
 
Quote from EricP:

Personally, I lean towards the argument that global warming is real, and impacted by human factors. I could certainly be wrong by this view, but that's the view that I lean towards.

That said, my frustration is that the constituancies that push the global warming issue are the same ones that reject most of the solutions for it. Assuming that global warming is, in fact, true and man-made, I view some of the best solutions would be power plants than don't burn hydrocarbons. However, nuclear power is rejected by most of those pushing global warming... Wind power is also rejected ('diminishes my view' and 'kills bats and birds')... Hydroelectric power is similarly rejected (affects the spawning of fish, etc)... I am in favor of the expansion of all of these kinds of <i>non-fossil fuel</i> consuming power production. However, it seems that the only 'solution' that most environmentalist tend to support is widespread bicycle use... Environmentalists and global warming theory supporters, what say ye?
More...

I agree it's a problem. The best answer would be massive research into improving solar panel efficiency and cost of mfg. If we could get that right we could then convert cars to electric and charge them off the home...etc.

Hopefully, that would provide enough of an offset to make global warming a non-event for the foreseeable future. My second choice would be nuclear with more stringent safeguards. The rest of what you suggest are niche products I think. They should be implemented anyway as they are "greener" but that's a whole other can of worms.
 
Quote from ssternlight:

Well,

If you come across any links you can post pop them up and we can see what they add. I don't find "earth day" to be particularly persuasive or scary for that matter.
More...

And I don't find "scientific concensus" on global warming particularly persuasive considering articles which have been posted on this very thread. For example, just21's post. That article is what will not doubt enable a future wiki writer to say that there was no consensus at the time, that it was all media driven.
 
Quote from fhl:

And I don't find "scientific concensus" on global warming particularly persuasive considering articles which have been posted on this very thread. For example, just21's post. That article is what will not doubt enable a future wiki writer to say that there was no consensus at the time, that it was all media driven.
More...


I might be more inclined to agree with you if you could pull up some links to support your contention about global cooling.

Having said that, Lindzen's primary argument is that the evidence isn't conclusive that human activities are causing the warming not that the earth isn't warming or C02 accumulating. Basically, he argues that the earth goes through cycles and that this is just another one.

Other scientists say that the amount of warming exceeds any cyclical component. Someone's right and someone's wrong. If Lindzen is wrong then the world has wasted time while it has a serious issue to deal with. If the scientific consenus is wrong then all we end up with is a cleaner environment. What's the downside to prudence? It's not like you can't pass through the costs of compliance to consumers after all.
 
Quote from ssternlight:

That seems straight-forward enough.

It's like the bird flu. It might be a major issue. It might not. But it doesn't pay to sit around and say it doesn't exist and don't worry about it. It's not like you can solve global warming in a week with an antibiotic after all.

As to the impact on me, I doubt it's an issue for which my generation (mid 40s) will feel a serious impact -- unless it turns out that the increased intensity of hurricanes is related. That doesn't mean we should ignore it though -- like the ongoing fantasies in Washington regarding social security and medicare liabilities.

Just my $.02.
More...

So, it's here now, and it's real, we just can't sense it.

Reminds me of that psychic on television who'll contact your dead relatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top