Politiscience....Global Warming

This forum is obviously full of many intellectual people, some schooled in sciences, and some knowledgable of them otherwise

I'm curious what ye of the community think about global warming? It's a rather heated issue to me, and I have argued my position a few times rather passionately with those of whom I do not agree.

I don't plan to join the argument so fervently this time, but I am definitely curious to see which side is better presented.


One of the most interesting things about this debate is that the scientific community has decent evidence to prove (or disprove) either side. Perhaps this will be enlightening...


So, the grand question here is "Is manmade emission of greenhouse gases (a factor that humans could possibly gain a modicum of control over) the major cause of global warming since the Industrial Revolution?"

Have fun!

Most amazing jew boots

My biggest problem with the phenomenon is the alarmist stance taken by environmentalists and the fact that it's used against America as a huge stigma when frankly the scientific data is shaky. Expand industry (guaranteed to) or protect the environment from global warming (dunno if we can do this!) is obviously a choice then of calculated risk


I just don't like alarmists predicting a 5 degree fahrenheit increase in temperature killing the world. It's ridiculous given what data is out there

There's nowhere I can't reach.

touche...good point

I meant the alarmist thing as in they predicted the super huge increase (5 degrees is a HUGE stress on the system), and it has not materialized

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

By the way

Quote:

stopped eating organic food they haven't grown themselves

I don't understand what you mean by organic, and I doubt that you understand what the word organic means

Also, if everybody ate only what they grew for themselves, then we'd have a famine on our hands


Are you for organic fertilizer, too? What is organic fertilizer?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Just so you know, "derivative hydrocarbon based substances" ARE organic. Organic means anything made of carbon.

The only difference between "organic" fertilizer (shit) and "artificial" fertilizer is their effectiveness. Fertilizers are generally composed of 3 main elements (correct me if I'm wrong), and they include nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. None of these is organic (because they're not CARBON), but they are all definitely the same fertilizer.

Essentially, man-made fertilizers are the same as the manures used in chemical composition, only more effective (considering that farmers are able to feed a good portion of the world, this isn't a long-shot). Go Fritz Haber!

Next, some could argue that the main reason pesticides are "bad" is because insects can develop resistances. Silent Spring and all that is an argument for another day, though.

By the way, I speak of organic strictly from the chemist's point of view. The other definitions you might find are derived colloquialisms to me.

In terms of that...hey! You want something that's organic AND all-natural and low in fat? Potassium Cyanide!



So, remember, without fertilizer we'd pretty much be up a shit-creek. Manure is effective, but not on a grand scale (look how much more expensive organic food is, when all food is organic). Not all additives are out to kill you (and many many carcinogenic substances are only so in HUGE amounts), and Fritz Haber saved us all from Malthusian wastelands! Then he weaponized poison gas

How ya doing, buddy?

Well, his contribution to science far outweighs his contribution to human death

By the way...potassium is also inorganic. All fertilizer is basically inorganic since they're not really made of carbon. The fertilizer that is chemically manufactured is the exact same nitrate and phosphate (etc) that comes from biological sources

Last note on chemistry, if it's carbon-containing, it's organic. If it has no carbon, it's inorganic. Both are devastatingly important to life sustenance, and fertilizer, no matter where you get it, is inorganic.

Honestly, given your point about famine, it seems like a lose-lose situation if peak oil should strike us suddenly (which is somewhat absurd). We could no longer transport the industrial fertilizer and big farm-grown food to everybody. And people still would not have enough land to grow their own food. Famine would probably erupt either way...but it is nice to note that making nitrogen-based fertilizer, in my understanding, takes no hydrocarbon fuel aside from that it requires through heating. So we could find an alternate mode of transportation to get food and fertilizer to and fro.

Of course, that disregards the need for fuels for machinery and all that, but I'm a student of chemistry! I don't think on the grand scale!

Hope I enlightened!

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?