|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Will anthropogenic global warming be revealed as a political sham? |
| Yes, in the next 6 months |
|
32% |
[ 11 ] |
| Yes, in the next 12 months |
|
11% |
[ 4 ] |
| Yes, in the next 24 months |
|
8% |
[ 3 ] |
| Yes, but long after we're all dead and buried. |
|
5% |
[ 2 ] |
| No |
|
41% |
[ 14 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 34 |
|
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Regarding your explicit question: not all energy from the sun is trapped forever in the atmosphere. If it were, we would slowly heat up until we were the same temperature as the sun. The CO2 levels go up and down, just as other greenhouse gases do. It's just common sense...
|
And in what range of CO2 levels can humans comfortably live? Just asking. I don't mean to be pedantic, but if dinosaurs, for example, could live within a different range than humans, it doesn't really matter to me. I ain't a dinosaur and neither are you. As an aside, I would not be all that happy crowded together with a few billion people in a cave in a mountain side.
Does anyone else get the feeling that the Right prefers breathing sewer gas just because the first Earth Day was in 1970 (more or less the peak of hippiedom)? |
It's a non-issue. The % in the atmosphere is around 0.038%, and you'd start feeling dizzy at around 2%. CO2 is not a toxic gas (like Al Gore says). We actually exhale it. You did know that right?
More CO2 is also good for plants, and we are currently in a period of carbon deficiency.
Last edited by visitorq on Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| The concentration of CO2 has increased 35% from the preindustrial base. |
Yeah, from 0.028 to 0.038 % of the atmosphere. Do you really think this spells doom? |
No...it just spells climate change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Who is talking toxic? I'm just asking at what level of CO2 the environment becomes unpleasant for human life as we know it. (I )define 'unpleasant' as when my whole country is under water, or as when formerly productive agricultural land becomes desert...
But mostly I wonder just how much crap a person is supposed to breathe so share-holders can earn a profit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've been looking around, and it appears the CRU computer models which the IPCC was relying upon is pretty messy. Its also suspicious that these guys weren't complying with FOI requests.
There may be something here after all. Not a scandal, not a sham, but something more mundane, but not for that less interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Who is talking toxic? I'm just asking at what level of CO2 the environment becomes unpleasant for human life as we know it. (I )define 'unpleasant' as when my whole country is under water, or as when formerly productive agricultural land becomes desert...
|
Well, that's just what's under dispute, isn't it? The truest answer anyone can give you is 'somewhere between 0.025% and 7%.'
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The concentration of CO2 has increased 35% from the preindustrial base. |
Yeah, from 0.028 to 0.038 % of the atmosphere. Do you really think this spells doom? |
No...it just spells climate change. |
I agree. But is it catastrophic? Keep in mind that this is the popular view of things, that the earth is heading for catastrophe. It's the view spread by contextless statements like 'CO2 has increased by 35%'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| The concentration of CO2 has increased 35% from the preindustrial base. |
Yeah, from 0.028 to 0.038 % of the atmosphere. Do you really think this spells doom? |
No...it just spells climate change. |
Did Mann tell you that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Who is talking toxic? I'm just asking at what level of CO2 the environment becomes unpleasant for human life as we know it. (I )define 'unpleasant' as when my whole country is under water, or as when formerly productive agricultural land becomes desert... |
CO2 levels are not going to turn land into desert or raise sea-levels. CO2 was 12X higher during an ice age period millions of years ago. What you are concerned about is based on totally bunk, alarmist science handed to you by the fake liberal media and the people who own it, who want to tax the very air you breath.
However, such changes may happen on their own naturally, in which case there's nothing you can do about it, so no point worrying about it too much...
| Quote: |
| But mostly I wonder just how much crap a person is supposed to breathe so share-holders can earn a profit. |
Less crap than a person has to listen to so a scam-artist like Al Gore can get his. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| , from 0.028 to 0.038 % of the atmosphere. Do you really think this spells doom? |
No...it just spells climate change. |
I agree. But is it catastrophic? Keep in mind that this is the popular view of things, that the earth is heading for catastrophe. It's the view spread by contextless statements like 'CO2 has increased by 35%'. |
The last time the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere was this high was during the mid-Miocene. Twenty million years ago. And the concentration has risen 35% in a little over a hundred years.
On geologic timescales that's like starting your car, putting it in neutral, and flooring the engine all in the space of a second. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| , from 0.028 to 0.038 % of the atmosphere. Do you really think this spells doom? |
No...it just spells climate change. |
I agree. But is it catastrophic? Keep in mind that this is the popular view of things, that the earth is heading for catastrophe. It's the view spread by contextless statements like 'CO2 has increased by 35%'. |
The last time the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere was this high was during the mid-Miocene. Twenty million years ago. And the concentration has risen 35% in a little over a hundred years. |
I understand what you're doing: you think that I'll be scared by your big numbers and time scales and your obscure geological references. Perhaps that's how they got to you, and so you think it'll work on me too. Where in what you said did you give any reason for me to believe that the earth is about to warm at a catastrophic rate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
The last time the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere was this high was during the mid-Miocene. Twenty million years ago. And the concentration has risen 35% in a little over a hundred years.
On geologic timescales that's like starting your car, putting it in neutral, and flooring the engine all in the space of a second. |
You refer to a sudden climate change. But I think the planet has experienced sudden-climate-change events many times in its history, most of them occurring long before Western capitalism came into existence.
Here is one opinion I simply Googled...
| Quote: |
| Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth�s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future... |
Abrupt Climate Change: Should We Be Worried?
This opinion gels with my own reading on evolutionary biology, especially punctuated-equilibrium theory. Change on our planet has probably tended to occur abruptly, without warning, and has produced far-reaching consequences, Manner. Western capitalism has only been around, in geological terms, for a fraction of a second or so, and probably has little to do with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Western capitalism has only been around, in geological terms, for a fraction of a second or so, and probably has little to do with it. |
So were comets and volcanic erruptions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Change on our planet has probably tended to occur abruptly, without warning, and has produced far-reaching consequences, Manner. Western capitalism has only been around, in geological terms, for a fraction of a second or so, and probably has little to do with it. |
Mass extinctions may have coincided with those abrupt changes. Is man at risk of becoming extinct as a result of such a change? Maybe. Is there anything he can do to avoid it? Maybe not, but he should take reasonable measures to diminish its chances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BreakfastInBed
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Location: Gyeonggi do
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have no horse in this race, but I voted no. The truth is I have no idea if the explanations scientists have come up with, to account for something that may or may not be happening, are correct. I have taken them at their word for most of my life regarding this. It is quite possible I have allowed myself to be blindly led.
It's hard to accept the whole thing as a sham though. And by the whole thing I simply mean the notion that humans are negatively impacting the environment to such an extent that we may render the Earth incapable of supporting our species. Maybe this is a case of thinking too much of ourselves, we are not the center of the universe nor as important as we imagine. However, I find that a better side to err on than the alternative, that we can act with impunity and suffer no consequences. Of course it is not so black and white, but however you draw the line, I will usually be on the side of caution.
Physicians used to talk of bodily humors and the way their combinations affected our personalities. Now we talk of chemical imbalances and psychological disorders. Not exactly the same thing, of course, but uncannily similar. The ancient intuition seems to have been borne out in its most basic concept. My suspicion is that our current position vis-a-vis climate change, its nature, and causes, will seem analagous some centuries down the road. Provided we make it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BreakfastInBed wrote: |
It's hard to accept the whole thing as a sham though. And by the whole thing I simply mean the notion that humans are negatively impacting the environment to such an extent that we may render the Earth incapable of supporting our species. Maybe this is a case of thinking too much of ourselves, we are not the center of the universe nor as important as we imagine. However, I find that a better side to err on than the alternative, that we can act with impunity and suffer no consequences. Of course it is not so black and white, but however you draw the line, I will usually be on the side of caution. |
This is the trap that's been laid for you... The environmentalist movement stems directly from the eugenics movement (the same people were involved, like Julian Huxley -- one of the most influential eugenicists of his time -- who set up UNESCO and the WWF after WWII when eugenics got a bad name). It is essentially anti-human, and is all about making you feel like a criminal (as if exhaling CO2 were a crime).
Take pride in being a human! We are fundamentally good, and we have a right to exist on this planet. Most of the raping and degradation of the environment is done by the very same people who fund the phony environmental movement and want to deprive us of a decent standard of living. Do some more research on your own, and the lies will become more apparent. Once you are aware of the sham being perpetrated on you, you will no longer feel any reason to be ashamed for being a human. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| , from 0.028 to 0.038 % of the atmosphere. Do you really think this spells doom? |
No...it just spells climate change. |
I agree. But is it catastrophic? Keep in mind that this is the popular view of things, that the earth is heading for catastrophe. It's the view spread by contextless statements like 'CO2 has increased by 35%'. |
The last time the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere was this high was during the mid-Miocene. Twenty million years ago. And the concentration has risen 35% in a little over a hundred years. |
I understand what you're doing: you think that I'll be scared by your big numbers and time scales and your obscure geological references. |
I use big numbers and obscure geological references because I have a degree in Geomorphology and worked for Environment Canada for 15 years.
| Quote: |
| Where in what you said did you give any reason for me to believe that the earth is about to warm at a catastrophic rate? |
The Earth is warming at a catastrophic rate on a geologic timescale. In little over 100 years, the structure of the atmosphere has been reworked so that it is identical to the mid-Miocene atmosphere of Earth in terms of C02 levels. And the atmosphere of the Miocene got that way over millions of years remained at that level of 0.035 percent C02 for subsequent millions of years; we've changed the atmosphere to the Miocene equivalent in a fraction of the time. Such a change is catastrophic to ecosystems, and inevitably will be catastrophic to the human populations that depend on them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
