Politiscience....Global Warming

Originally Posted by deadally

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?"

I tend to take what's seen as a neutrally stance on this issue. There's so much about the Earth we don't know. We only have our theories. Which are not based on universal or absolute fact. The planet has warmed up and cooled down in the past history predating mankind. With factors completely outside of manmade greenhouse gases exerting their considerable influence.

That being said, it's becoming harder to deny that global warming is not in actuality occuring. What I do think is that the emission of greenhouse gases is not the only contributing factor to causing global warming. It might be speeding up the process though. Thinking this leads me to suspect that it is making the weather behave in more extremes. After the multitudes of record-breaking category five hurricanes last season, I have little doubts of that anymore. I dread the coming hurricane season. If scientists are right about this particular theory, what we're experiencing is in fact "time lagged". So the worse is still yet to come.

I've never had a strong science background so anything I said above take with a grain of salt. Or a glass of 'kool-aid' har-har!

Most amazing jew boots

The quote in my signature has never had more relevancy to a topic.

Originally Posted by Wesker

Wow..it sure didn't take long to start blaming Bush for global warming! The Kyoto accords, which we rightly didn't join, would do little or nothing to curd greenhouse gasses since they don't address the worlds biggets polluters, China and India.

The Kyoto Accords are worthless. It's not just due to non-participating countries like China/India/US. Why? No country that has signed and ratified the accords has met their emissions goal. Except France. Hooray! We're really saving the world now aren't we?

Originally Posted by Wesker

I love the elitist liberal attitude expressed here. The entire middle portion of the country is stupid..if only they could be as smart as the coastal liberals we'd have a regular utopia!

Let's all buy hybrids. So not only can we increase the CO2 emissions from cars, but we can use more electricity/metal in the manufacturing process! It make's great marketing oppurtunities, and make's you feel good that you're doing something for the environment. When in reality you're doing nothing, but help speed up a collapse.

Originally Posted by NYRSkate

The thing is, the majority of people (these days) aren't brushing it aside. The government is.

Uhh yes they are. Don't just blame our government. How many people do you know have stopped flying, stopped driving, stopped using electricity, stopped buying stuff, stopped eating organic food they haven't grown themselves, and overall just stopped or lessened their consumption of goods/services?

Not many.... if at all any.

Originally Posted by NYRSkate

As long as people think an oil-loving bible thumper is the right fit for the job, regardless of how inept he is at dealing with every major issue facing the country, we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

We shot ourselves in the foot back in the 1950's when we thought energy was going to be free. Too late to go back now. That oil-loving bible thumper is just giving everybody what they want. Which is infinite growth in a world of finite resources. He's failing miserably.

"The American way of life is not negotiable."

Originally Posted by PUG1911

Either way, there *is* a role played by us, whether it be large or small. No one is denying that these days (I hope..). The argument has now turned into a 'so what?' argument instead.

Exactly my point. So what? You and I both know that we're going to use every drop of oil and every lump of coal that we can get our hands on. Why should we try to slow it down? It's not going to work. Nobody want's to slow their consumption. Mouthing platitudes is one thing, but actually doing something to help is quite another. Take a shit, or get off the toilet.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

My view is that regardless of how much harm we are doing, we should make
a reasonable effort to limit it. Over time it can matter, and if we don't, then we are just going through resources (non-renewable mostly) faster than we could if we didn't take the greedy/easy way out. Innovation with regards to energy efficiency etc. lead to alternative energies which leads to a lessened dependency on oil. Sounds like a good enough 'push' in that direction to me.

Energy efficiency only offsets depletion. Efficiency does not do anything for unbridaled consumption. Utilizing alternative energies only leads to more consumption which only leads to more environment damage. What do you want? To protect the environment or to continue to consume? You can't have both. You will get neither.

But at least some British conservative get's it....

Quote:

Fortunately I have found a solution to our present predicament, which involves lots of privation, requires no legislation and doesn't give anybody a way out: crippling petrol prices. Four times - no, 10 times - what we're paying now. All we need is a little reckless military intervention in the Middle East, say, something guarantied to backfire spectacularly and secure global instability. Why hasn't anybody thought of this? No one will be able to afford air travel, the roads will be empty, the economy will collapse, the government will run out of money and the planet will be saved. And I will be able to say that I did my little bit.

Source: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conse...765565,00.html

All it might take for oil prices to spiral out of control is another bad hurricane season, rising ocean levels threatening offshore oil production, or some unrest in any oil producing region. Just don't cry when we all look back to the days when 3 dollars a gallon was cheap. One more month until hurricane season begins...

Wow, so not going to win any friends with this post. Ahh well. Least I can say life isn't boring. This just keeps getting more exciting. Cheerio!

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by a lurker

Because it's unreasonable to ask people to go on Walden-esque retreats. Nigga's gotta work, nigga's gotta eat. And for all the personal sacrifices someone has to make to unhook themselves from the grid*, it won't make a lick of difference. A larger trend in society would, and efficency changes in industry better still.

You misunderstand me. I'm saying that even if a person went to such lengths to "save the planet" it wouldn't matter. It would just mean more for the rest of us that do consume. In this case, it'd mean more for the Chinese or Indians. A larger trend in society will not take hold. Whether that be in the interests of the environment or economy. Each government motivated attempt has ended up in complete failure. The Kyoto Accords being an example for the environment. Or if you need an economic example look up Gorbachev's Perestroika(sp?) initiatives. Any attempt to slow a decline has only ended up speeding it up.

Originally Posted by deadally

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

What I mean by 'organic' is the absence of derivative hydrocarbon based sustances that assist in the production of our food supply. Whether that be fertilzers, herbicides, pesticides, etc.

Originally Posted by deadally

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

An acute observation. Not one I'm inclined to disagree with.

Originally Posted by deadally

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

Heh. This question I'm not wholly prepared to answer. I know little to nothing about organic farming. Organic feritilizer is basically made up of compost. Compost could be anything that's of a decaying organic matter. I suspect my retired mother uses shit in her compost pile for her garden. It just smells like it.....

Originally Posted by Gechmir

Before the crash, I could've forwarded you to an old monstrous thread about Peak Oil. Whitecrab, an former(?) poster was a big fan of Peak Oil discussion, and I believe he made the thread originally.

I think the debate is over. When the New York Times acknowledges it to the degree of calling it an "almost certainty", and it has congressional support there's not much to debate about. Except how far it has penetrated the public consciousness.

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

Originally Posted by deadally

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

In the context I was using the term "inorganic" was/is originating from a non-biological source.

Originally Posted by deadally

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.

You're right on the first two. I have no clue about potassium though. Again, it's not derived from a biological source, so it's considered inorganic from a non-chemist's point of view. You seem like someone who really enjoys organic chemistry. (I think I just lost an old bet...)

This probably belongs in a Peak-Oil or a permaculture related discussion, but one glaring difference is how sustainable our current farming infrastructure is given the rising of energy prices. If it isn't sustainable in such an environment, it does not matter how much more effective it is. It will just be more expensive. If people cannot afford it, they'll just starve. They're better off growing their own food. So it's not necessarily the better option when speaking from that aspect eh? Since natural gas is a major component in the production of our fertilizers/herbicides/pesticides. Yet another nonrenewable hydrocarbon resource which we only have so much of.

Originally Posted by deadally

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.

You'd be debating yourself. Soooo not going to touch that one. Science as a whole was not a very good subject of mine.

Originally Posted by deadally

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.

That much is obvious. Our interpetations of the words organic and inorganic differ roughly on those lines.

Originally Posted by deadally

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

I wasn't talking about "organic" stores selling organic food. Most of that stuff is sold at Safeway for much cheaper. It's just an excuse used to sell overpriced food to ignorant yuppies who aren't smart enough to know what they're buying. Nor, do I think that food additives are out to kill me. Just talking from a generalized individual "organic" food growing aspect.

I'm not the one that said that there would be a famine if we had to grow our food organically.... I just questioned the sustainability of our current food growing paradigm in the face of rising energy costs. Which is in no way related...... right?

Originally Posted by deadally

Fritz Haber saved us all from Malthusian wastelands! Then he weaponized poison gas

Ahhh, yet another example of "progress" at work.

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

Originally Posted by PUG1911

Unfortunately efforts to make changes are often attacked on the basis of being 'too much too soon' etc. And since no one wants to make drastic changes right away, they instead drop the entire premise based on a flaw in the proposed timeline instead of a flaw in the goal or acheivability of the goal.

I don't think there's a flaw in the time-table. Kyoto still allowed for a modest increase in emissions through the trading of the emissions that took place on the emissions market. Think of it as a "pollution tax" that increases with the amount of emissions released. It still didn't stop Kyoto's goals from failure. From what I've heard the emission trading market has collapsed as well.

Overall, there's nothing wrong with having a noble goal. The problem is when there's absolutely no chance that this noble goal has a chance in hell of succeeding. Since apparently nobody really wanted to curb their emissions in the first place. It just make's you look good if you signed it, and bad if you don't.

Or perhaps you would like this noble goal to be enforced by authority? A "green" authoritarian who would break down the doors of companies and individuals that did not comply. Imprisoning the wrong-doers. Which is everybody that is not French. Ahhh... the dream scenario?

Most amazing jew boots