Global Warming, once again.

Quote:

---

As a result of my climate holocaust denial, I received a ton of letters along the lines of this one: "Your piece gave most of my students, most of whom are conservative, a laugh. A journalist's word against six years of peer-reviewed research conducted by world authorities on the subject.
"But, as one my student's [sic] put it: 'Steyn's piece could prove valuable: We often run out of toilet paper here.' How is it that you can make a living writing what you do is a wonder. But then, the vulgar wish to be deceived, after all.
"Steve Pierson
Professor of English."
Presumably Professor Pierson signs himself "Professor of English" to establish his credentials for opining on how I can make a living writing. To be honest, I'm flattered to know I'm being discussed at Onondaga Community College in Syracuse, N.Y.: Did I displace Shakespeare? Or Maya Angelou? Or the class where you learn not to put an apostrophe in noun plurals?

---

http://washtimes.com/commentary/2007...2909-1378r.htm

With any subject you always have different opions, and some people will never change there minds no matter what is presented to them as proof. What bothers me is that as people debate global warming they are over look one simple thing that is air pollution. Who care if global warming is real if you can't breath the air.

I recently blogged on the subject (http://www.computerdefense.org/?p=235)... I'm one of the people who don't believe in Global Warming (The "professor of english" points out years of peer-reviewed paper... we've seen consensus science steer the public in the wrong direction in previous instances -- The Danger of Nuclear Winter is one example... )...

MadBeaver: You're talking about two completely different things... I don't believe in Global Warming and I'm anti-Recycling (In most cases it's more expensive to recycle and produces more waste than the product itself and in the case of, say, paper... the majority (in first world countries anyways) comes from tree farms designed for the purpose... so our recycling has no real benefits.

That being said... I am a big fan of decreasing factory emissions, automobile use, and I'm a fan of the other 2 "R"s (Reuse and Reduce)... I think linking a sense of environmental concern and global warming is "immature"... it makes those who believe one feel as though they HAVE to believe the other... and right now there's just not enough evidence to prove that Global Warming exists.

Exactly!

The point I have consistently made is that there is no point in the UK or any other EU nation doing anything, whist China, India and the US continue to spew crap into our environment.

Global warming control is about as likely as the US winning in Iraq............. we go through cycles that are way beyond our control. The climate has always changed from the paleontological, and geological evidence that we have.

It happens, we have to learn to live with it, but $h1tting our own nests isn't an option. ;)

[Ramble and Rant]
My thought is that I would rather reduce emissions and other items that are said to cause global warming and be wrong, than the alternative. I agree with you on the linking a sense of environmental concern and global warming. I would like to see people agree to decrease emission just for environmental concern. Too often you here that some company or country (US) doesn't want to cut emission because they don't believe in global warming or worse yet because (well so and so isn't doing it, so why should we.)[/Ramble and Rant]

This is a touchy subject for me because I live in the tailpipe of the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadBeaver

[Ramble and Rant]
This is a touchy subject for me because I live in the tailpipe of the US.

---

I can relate, here in Atlantic Canada, the majority of the acid rain we would get would come via you guy's, well the vast majority of it from the Ohio/Michigan/New York/Ontario corridor.....I too would rather see us err on the side of caution, too often we are reactive and not proactive, and in this case we may not have a chance to react in time? (Mother nature is very unforgiving)...:rolleyes:

I used to be disgusted but now I'm just amused at all the people saying "STOP GLOBAL WARMING".

The debate is not about stopping global warming, man couldn't stop it anyway. the debate should be if we are accelerating it or not.

This planet is in its (at least) 4th interglacial period. Man has only been around since the last one. It means that nature herself has frozen and warmed this planet at least 4 times, without the help on man I might add.

Should we be conserving, yes, all of our natural resources have a finite supply. Should we figure out how to do it with out polluting, naturally who the hell wants to choke on exhaust.

So maybe all these people will protest for slowing the planets rotation so we can have a longer day or something....

ddddc, that is pretty much my take on it.

We can have "clean" inadvertent climatic modification (greenhouse effect) and we can have the "dirty" sort.

Pollution will kill us all first, and affects the balance of nature such as plankton which improve the environment.

Then there is the rape of rainforests.............

:(

EDIT: I most certainly DO believe in global warming, just as I believe in global cooling. As ddddc, pointed out, we are in at least our fourth interglacial period.

As for recycling, yes I believe in that also, but not for recycling's sake. I ask two questions:

1. Can I sell it?................if the answer is yes, then recycle.
2. What is the cost of alternative disposal methods? This is the one that seems to drive the EU's current passion for recycling. Whilst it might not be the most cost effective way of getting new product, it could be the most effective means of disposing of the old, and you need to balance the two.