An Inconvenient Truth

[CyclonePackFan]

Come on people, every practicing Pastafarian knows that global warming is merely a result of the influence of His Noodly Appendage in response to the sharp decline in the number of His ideal form for humanity, the Pirate. I refer you to the following statistical proof:



In all seriousness and in my humble opinion, part of the problem with doing research is that many of the solutions to our energy/global warming problem are tied to buzz words that freak out the general population. For example, if I stood in front of a room of "tree humpers" as it has been so eloquently put and was asked the solution to our energy problem, I would be booed off the stage the moment I said the word "Nuclear" and before I could finish my sentence with the word "fusion." (Now that I think of it, I haven't heard anything on fusion research recently, I might have to look into that after I'm done posting this) People want to utilize fuel cell technology, but if I told them that the first step is investing in genetic research, they'd freak. Personally, I can't wait for BMW to put out the first fuel cell cars in a couple of years, but I sincerely doubt it will catch on in the US in the near future since Exxon Mobil will simply block it's arrival or buy out the research. As for overpopulation, well, that's a problem that fixes itself, but not by means that most people approve. Eventually, there will be a famine, or drought, or disease (global warming induced or otherwise) which will help Mother Earth handle the problem herself.

[Patler]

I have been a "member of the science community" for over 35 years. One thing that all good scientists agree on is how little they know with certainty.

As a young pup I was deluged with reports about thickening of the ozone layer through the release of the then-common refrigerant gasses in air conditioners, refrigerators, etc. and the propellants in aerosol cans, etc. In those days, everything you can think of was dispensed from cans having gas propellants pre-loaded in the can. The atmospheric pumps commonly used today were not yet developed. When AC units were recharged, the overflow was simply released, not captured as today. The earth was measurably cooling. The polar ice caps would build and a new ice age would overtake us. That was the conclusion of widely accepted scientific models. It was obvious for everyone to see. The measurables were there. The ozone layer WAS thickening. The earth WAS cooling. Both were measured here, there and everywhere. Mankind WAS releasing the gases. One must be causing the others, right?

Suddenly, the earth was no longer cooling, it was warming. The ice caps were not growing, they were melting. The ozone layer was not thickening, it was thinning and a hole developed, which is growing. Science scrambled for an explanation. How about CO2? The chemistry works. That MUST be it!

But is it? Good science will look for explanations that are consistent with the phenomena of 35 years ago and the phenomena of today. I've not yet seen anything that does that, except naturally occuring ebs and flows, the alteration of which by man is minimal. Society has not changed enough in the last 50 years to have reversed global cooling and an oncoming ice age to global warming instead. If we were responsible for global cooling, how are we now responsible for global warming? If we are responsible for global warming, how could we have been responsible for global cooling just 35 years ago?

If carbon dioxide is the problem, what is the answer? Reduced carbon dioxide emissions, or increased carbon dioxide use, consumption and conversion by increased plant matter. Are we releasing too much carbon dioxide, or cutting too many trees?

One of the biggest problems science and mankind have consistently encountered is not adequately studying their "remedies". We are convinced we have the answer, we follow the solution only to discover we have developed still other, and sometimes more significant problems. Everything has repercussions, including the naturally occurring phenomena. No action is totally inert. For the most part, we just don't yet understand.

I'm not suggesting that these are not things that should be studied. Clearly they should be studied. However, running around shouting "the earth is dying, the earth is dying" is irresponsible in my opinion. Instilling panic is irresponsible. Yes, we should pursue efforts to pollute less, use less, be efficient. But we should not jump too quickly to conclusions or solutions neither of which we understand fully. After all, at one time nuclear power generation was perceived to be the answer. It was felt to be clean and non-polluting. We were sure we could control the reactors and the handling of the radioactive materials. Nuclear plants were being built everywhere. Less coal would be used, less pollution would result. Some might argue we gave up too quickly with nuclear power generation; however, clearly we were not prepared for some of the problems that occurred.


As an aside, we are not overpopulated, we are too inefficiently organized to support the population distribution.

[No Mo Moss]

This is from jstone on the identical thread on the JSO site. He put it so damn beautifully I have to post it here:

blah blah blah... more "non-partisan" cold hard facts which happens to include bashing conservatives because they're fucking idiots who just don't get it....

Brilliant!

Real convincing stuff. I really appreciate how you've now moved all your arguments into the "you don't need facts to see this..." and "you don't need science to tell you that..." after all your ranting about how science backs you up 90%.

You continue to ignore the progress being made on a real level and continue to shout out your ideals as fact and scientific certainty. You have yet to offer any plan of action outside of signing the Kyoto treaty and unrealistic models of how energy distribution will work in the future (your hydrogen cell yabberjabber about coops and local ownership).

Whoever develops the next large source of energy is not going to hand away the bazillions of dollars that will have been spent researching, developing, and building the delivery infastructure needed for said energy source. Guess what? They're going to sell it! Yes, crazy idea, but they're going to to sell it to you and make a profit! Just like gasoline!

And you know what else? After said energy source has been established, there's not going to be an "economic boon" in mass producing it because companies in Europe, Asia, Canada, and Mexico will simply do it cheaper - just like pharmacuticals. Especially if the US companies have been hogtied by your ideas about handicapping American businesses with things like the Kyoto chicken raping device.

SKin, I've moved my arguement because any scientific data presented on this thread is considered leftie crap and is probably not even read. I am simply refuting the ideas expressed on here stating that man has little or no impact on this planet because the science that says so is politically motivated. It is completely assinine to say that humans haven't impacted the earth in a negative way. I'm saying you don't need science to see that, just a pair of eyes and a garbage can.

As for the Kyoto arguement it doesn't hold water with me. I'm not so upset that we didn't sign it, but rather that when things weren't exactly what we wanted we simply had a childish breakdown and didn't even bother to exercise any continued diplomacy. Why does this country always have to operate in extremes.

The aforementioned power supply example is a very realistsic one. Of course the companies will sell it, why wouldn't they. Unfortunately the fuel will most likely be water, so selling it like gasoline won't work. You make it sound like I expect some kind of Utopia with lemonheads falling from the sky instead of money, because everything is free. That's not what I'm saying. Why must we have so much sympathy for the oil companies. With every other product and market you either adapt or go belly up. Not with them though. They get to rape middle america and post record profits while still getting sympathy.

[mraynrand]

Overpopulation is a real problem and any statement refuting that is irresponsible. Regardless of region it is a problem. If it doesn't exist then why have some countries had to limit the number of children allowed?

Why do some countries have lower carrying capacity? Perhaps it's the political and social environment that prevents modernization. Without modernization, an agrarian country like China had to rely on more children per family to work the soil to raise crops etcetera. Also, Mao killed many more Chinese than 'overpopulation' and any statement refuting that is irresponsible.

You wrote:
"Its not a difficult concept and requires no scientific studies whatsoever. My grandparents had 3 kids. each of those kids had three kids. That's 14 people. When the grandparents die you're down to 12, but once the kids have offspring you're likely at 32. how's that not going to be a problem?"

Really, that's brilliant. Did you read what I wrote previously? What you are describing is a typical growth curve - a growth curve for a bacteria or yeast in an environment with excess substrate (nutrient). As I said, humans don't operate the same way. If you look closely, you may find that areas where you think there is 'overpopulation' are areas that have repressive governments and/or areas that have not yet modernized past a simple agrarian subsistence farming. Do you think NYC is overcrowded? again, based on what? Number of people per square inch? How much each eats per day? What? Is Colorado then 'underpopulated'? How do you know what the carrying capacity of the Earth is? Will it always be the same, or will it change when new food producing technologies come on line? Do people in modernized cultures have the same number of offspring as those in less modern regions?


You also wrote:

"First the environment is in great shape and then overpopulation is just an interpretation, give me a break!"

Note the all-or-none hysteria in response to my observation that pollution and man-made damage to the environment is not universal or consistent from region to region. Who is being rational and who is being hysterical?

[SkinBasket]

You make it sound like I expect some kind of Utopia with lemonheads falling from the sky instead of money, because everything is free. That's not what I'm saying. Why must we have so much sympathy for the oil companies. With every other product and market you either adapt or go belly up. Not with them though. They get to rape middle america and post record profits while still getting sympathy.

Actually you do make it sound ilke you expect some utopia. Though I'm not sure how long we could sustain ourselves on lemonheads.

Where is this sympathy crud coming from? Who here has sympathy for oil companies? Not only that, but why the hell should they adapt when, as you put it, they are making record profits? This is still the remants of a somehat free economy afterall. They set a price for their goods. You pay it or you get a bike and start peddling.

Also, maybe you could explain how they're raping "middle america" and not "lower america" or "upper america." Is "middle america" paying more for gas than everyone else?

[Little Whiskey]

Why must we have so much sympathy for the oil companies. With every other product and market you either adapt or go belly up. Not with them though. They get to rape middle america and post record profits while still getting sympathy.

what gets me is all the blame shifted to the oil companies, by the gov't and politicians. after the oil wars the gov't mandated that oil companies must mark up gasoline 9%. if the cost of Gas is $1.00 they oil company must charge at a minimum $1.09. they make 9 cents per gallon. now lets say the price of gas jumps to $2.00 per gallon. that same oil company must charge 2.18 per gallon. and in return double there earnings!!! but lets look at those numbers from a diffrent angle. sales tax in my area is 6%. in the first example the gov't made $.06 for every gallon and in the second example they made $.12 for every gallon. DOUBLING their earnings!!! and they didn't have to do anything. no pumping, no trasporting, no refining, no drilling, no research. nothing. and that is just the sales tax. by the time you add all the other taxes and fees we are paying for gas, it is the gov't that is making more money on gas than the terrible oil companies. how come in this time of crisis and high gas prices the gov't isn't repealing any of the taxes and fees they place on gas?? who is really raping middle america??

[mraynrand]

Just about the worst thing you could do at this point with gas prices would be to artifically lower the price. That would artificially spike demand and you would use more fuel and you would potentially have shortages. Plus, for the regions that would run out first, the artifically lower prices would reduce any incentive for someone to ship fuel from regions where excess existed. Basic economics. Also, for the conservationists, naturally high gas prices are the best thing we have - if high prices reflect real demand, then we actually have a chance that entrepeneurs will invest seriously in other fuels and vehicles (such as biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear energy to provide electricity to power hydrogen fuel cells etc. etc.), which is exactly what we need to reduce greenhouse emissions. Isn't that what Al Gore wants?

[No Mo Moss]

Articially lower the gas price? Yeah I'd hate to chip into their record profits they post when they "artificially" raise prices whenever they like.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Wait! Don't you want the price of gas to rise, so we'd have to conserve and use less?

[No Mo Moss]

I don't want gas prices to break people anymore than they already are. Who the f*ck roots for higher gas prices?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Who the f*ck roots for higher gas prices?

Many environmentalists. Gas prices, adjusted for inflation, are the same as they were 25 years ago. Unless prices get exorbinant, you likely won't see a big change in demand.

[No Mo Moss]

Harv, 25 years ago we were in the middle of a gas crisis.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Harv, 25 years ago we were in the middle of a gas crisis.

No, that was 27 years ago and 33 years ago. Apparently, gas prices aren't too high since demand has not decreased one bit. Europeans seem willing to pay more than double what we do.

[No Mo Moss]

Well most europeans rely on their car less than Americans, atleast for country to country travel. That is done almost exclusively by air or rail. I wish we had more high speed rail in this country. I love driving my car and everything, but if I could get on a 150mph bullet train to Chicago every weekend I'd be all about it.

They pay by the litre too.

[mraynrand]

Well most europeans rely on their car less than Americans, atleast for country to country travel. That is done almost exclusively by air or rail. I wish we had more high speed rail in this country. I love driving my car and everything, but if I could get on a 150mph bullet train to Chicago every weekend I'd be all about it.

They pay by the litre too.

I ride the Coors Light Train every weekend.