Eco-quiz (and Breathing Earth)

Darth Mandarb · Sat 09/12/2006 18:47:19

Quote from: Andail on Sat 09/12/2006 17:33:13The test is simply saying that if everybody lived like you do, one earth would not be enough. Do you disagree?

100% disagree yes.

Global Warming is just another scare tactic to keep us all afraid.

The end-all [ironic] result of global warming, or so the "experts" claim, would be another ice-age.

If you look at the earth in a "historical" sense ... 70,000 years ago the earth warmed up, melted some ice-caps, and then had an ice-age (which ended about 10,000 years ago). Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there were cars and electricity causing global warming 70,000 years ago?

The planet is on it's own cycle doing it's own thing. It's going to keep on doing it as it wants.

The moon is slowly pulling away from earth (the moon is what keeps the earth's climate as steady as it is). Each year it gets about an inch or two further away. Thusly, each year the climate will be changing a bit more (tides, oceanic currents, shifting seasons, etc.). The earth also wobbles on it's axis ... every so often (few millenia) it reaches a point where radical climate changes take place. It's inevitable and has nothing to do with human life-styles.

Now ... do I think that we should be more energy conservative? Stop burning fossil fuels? etc. Yes, 100%.

But I just don't buy that my "footprint" is killing the planet. That's silly.

Nacho · Sat 09/12/2006 19:02:12

There is a movie called "Ice age 2: The meltdown"

It prooves that factories, western countries excessive style of living, capitalism and colonialism provoqued a global warming before...

Ouch!

Andail · Sat 09/12/2006 19:40:27

Darth, I simply don't see how you can refute this. The issue is not only about global warming, it's simply how the earth's resources are distributed.
And please, I think everyone here knows about the ice age etc, and yes, you're quite correct, there were no cars 10000 years ago. And ok, it's great that you've picked up the scare tactics concept, I guess we can thank Michael Moore for opening people's eyes when it comes to authorities' way of keeping their minions in control by scaring them.
But get with the program now.

I'd like to see every african villager, every asian rice farmer and every street kid around the world suddenly acquire a car and a computer, and start flying aeroplanes to eat business-lunches far away.
As I said, the only reason why we can still do this, we rich people in the west, is that they still can't. We would run out of resources, and the air would be too polluted. It's ignorance to not accept this fact.

Nacho · Sat 09/12/2006 20:10:35

Quote from: Andail on Sat 09/12/2006 19:40:27
It's ignorance to not accept this fact.

http://www.lomborg.com/
Or maybe we' re drinking from another fountains of knowleadge...

People forms its opinions searching and choosing which of this (many times opposed) information is the most sensible... I really believe we are not still powerfull enough to hurt the earth. It' s a fact that human c02 emissions are insignificant compared with the natural ones (volcanoes). Same happens with petrol emanations. It' s is very discouraging when you see a tanker wasting it' s deathly change to the coast and sea, but it' s not very significant compared with the emanations of natural sources.

Jumping over this concept and saying "You are ignorant if you don' t agree with the path I' ve choosed" is, I am sorry to say, something I don' t really agree.

Darth Mandarb · Sat 09/12/2006 20:13:07

Quote from: Andail on Sat 09/12/2006 19:40:27It's ignorance to not accept this fact.

I appreciate your opinion. However, I think it's ignorance to think that WE are causing it. And I certainly wouldn't call it "fact".

It's happened before like it's happening now and we weren't around (as we are now) to cause it then.

As I said in my last post yes, we should be more concious of our resources (IE use less, conserve what we do have, etc) but for every scientific "fact" I've seen that states we're causing global warning I've seen scientific "fact" (evidence) that the exact same thing has happened (several times) through out our planet's history.

I might be willing to concede that we certainly aren't helping delay the inevitable! But are we causing it? Nah ... I just don't think so. I also think it's the height of ignorance/arrogance to think that we mortal humans could actually stop it from happening. Mighty we may be ... but we can't stop the universal physics that have been working for billions of years.

Enjoy the ride while you can ... nature/physics/god whatever you want to call it has been pulling the strings for a lot longer than we've been around and will continue to do so long after we blink out of existence.

Adamski · Sat 09/12/2006 20:45:03

Darth, I understand that in America certain factions believe that global warming is something that is up for debate, like gay marriage and abortion. It isn't, it's a fact, and it's honestly very alarming to see people bury their head in the sand on this issue. It doesn't matter what you think or not, it doesn't come down to personal opinon, it's not a 'political thing' or a story made up by Al Gore so he can make a quick buck - this shit is happening and the exhaust pipes that make your car run and supply your electricity are the reason for it. Just because geological evidence suggests we happen to be in for another ice age in the next 10,000 years or so does not suddenly mean that the carbon dioxide and CFCs the whole world is pumping into the air - and North America is one of the biggest contributers - are not harming our planet in any way.

I very much agree with Andail that it is ignorant to brush off global warming as just a bunch of hippie liberals trying to cause alarm. It's a very real problem that is unfortunatly outside most people's little tiny bubbles of existance, which is perhaps why so many are quick to deny that it exists.

Andail · Sat 09/12/2006 20:46:35

Allow me to reitterate that the issue here is hypothetical; if the world is fine and dandy as it is, it's because only a portion of the world's population live like we do. If those billions of people who still don't drive a car (etc and all of that) would do so, the situation would be different. That's why we're being arrogant when we claim we're actually living sustainably.
But sure, I guess you have read and perhaps performed scientific studies that prove that we're not all affecting the earth. That we're not actually emptying the sea of certain fish, that we're not threatening the existence of entire species or that pollution is actually harmless and not at all getting worse.
I trust the wisdom of Nacho and Darth that we can carry on like we do, that the rainforest will suddenly stop being reduced (although we will still need endless of acres for our over-consumption) and that Coca Cola factories do not actually ruin the water for natives in third world countries, and so on and so on.
It's all scare tactics.

scotch · Sat 09/12/2006 20:48:15

Yes there are many kinds of cycles on earth, not least the ice ages, but that doesn't mean the planet is indestructible, nor does it mean we would want to bring dramatic climate changes upon ourselves in the short term, even if in thousands of years they will happen anyway. Incidentally the moon doesn't keep the earth's climate "as steady as it is" to any great extent, we rely on lots of different feedback mechanisms for that, but you're right the Milankovitch cycles determine the ice ages. Whenever you dismiss the majority of the scientific community as "experts" in inverted commas, and promote an alternative view of how things are you had better know what you are talking about.

It's funny/sad that, as is the case with evolution to some extent, there seems to be genuine popular opinion in the states that it's all a big lie, or a mistake. I don't actually think it comes from not wanting to admit that our usage of resources is becoming a problem, it seems to come from a deep misunderstanding and distrust of science. Scientists are all biased, they're all in someone's pocket, they're all trying to make their field seem more important and they all disagree with each other anyway. That seems to be the prevailing view.

Now there's certainly a lot of debate in climatology on what the outcomes of global warming will be, modelling the atmosphere is a difficult problem, but few serious scientists hold the view that we're not affecting the atmosphere significantly, and outside the cyclical norms of (geologically) recent history. Primarily human activity has increased CO2 levels such that they're many times higher than they have been through ice age cycles going back hundreds of millenia, and the average global temperature is rising in a way that doesn't have a known precedent. That much is scientific consensus these days, and quite measurable. Not many people would say the net result of all this is another imminent ice-age, because most don't seem to have much of a clear view on where it's all headed. Some people are worried to the point that they think it's already too late to avoid catastrophic problems, and some think we can live with it just fine. On this I'm happy to err on the side of caution, and I'm glad that's the view most of the governments of the world are looking at it. It's nice to see people taking a stand together on something that they could so easily stick their heads in the sand about.

I agree we're not killing the planet, we're building huge civilisations unsustainably, and seriously overpopulating the earth, that's all, it'll survive, but it'll probably won't be so nice for us humans. And we're talking human scale time here, hundreds of years, not tens of thousands, so the ice ages have little to do with the problem at hand. You may as well say it doesn't matter if we solve the Israel-Palestine issue, because in X thousand years it'll be covered in ice anyway, things will easily calm down once the terrorists get bored of attacking the settler's igloos.

Nacho · Sat 09/12/2006 20:58:43

In addition, this "West capitalist countries blah blah..." are causing it all, it is also ,in my opinion, a (widely spreaded) , lie.

What causes contamination?

Do we talk about nuclear? Who are making nuke tests lately? France, South Korea, Pakistan, India and (possibly soon) Iran. One "West capitalist Ã,Â of a group of 5...

Do we call of deforestation? Brasil and Bolivia are deforesting the Amazones, not an "Evil West country".

Animal slaughtering? Chineses are slaughtering the population of tigers, because they grind the bones to make a "powder that cures artrosis" Ã,Â Same happens with Rhynos and Gorillas. It is not our "West medicine", I think...

This "Occidental capitalism" is going to collapse soon is something that has been said before (The machines will do the job of men, therefore uneployed masses of population will cause a revolt that will destroy the civilization blah, blah..." -Karl Marx)

As it happened before, this armaggedon theories will be prooved to be false. Progress and science will find a sollution. The sollution is investigating more. For example, 90% of the emission of the C02 gasses are made by switching on the engines of the cars. Scientists are investigating combined diesel/electric cars which will redouce emissions in 90%. Western scientists, of course.

Do you imagine Kim Jon Il giving money to investigate automobile with combined electric and diesel engines? I don' t.

Adam. That "the heat is being increased expotentially" is a spreadly fallacy based on the "hockey stick graphic", which has been prooved to be a goof.

[link]http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/[/link]

So, guys... Read "The Skeptical Environmentalist", study real graphic charts, and reconsider your opinions. If they are still the same, I will be opened to discuss.

Unless you go on with the "If you don' t agree with me you are a bunch of ignorants".

Discussions go like this. Showing of opinion A, Showing of opinion B. Discussion of both opinions to see if there is a sensible middle term. If people with "opinion B" is simply going to say as reasons "You are ignorants" I am out. You win. Congratulations!

Darth Mandarb · Sat 09/12/2006 21:01:40

This is one of those debates that really isn't going to resolve itself ...

I'm not arguing/debating that we are polluting the planet by burning our resources. I just don't believe it's "destroying" the planet. Are species of fish/plants going extinct? Yes they are. Just as they have for billions of years. The Sahara desert region of the planet used to be covered with plants and water ... now it's a desert. Has been a desert for a LOT longer than we've been burning fossil fuels.

You can call it "fact" that we're destroying the planet. That's fine if you truely believe it. You can call me ignorant if you wish. I have not seen ANY "facts" that we're killing the planet. Are we polluting the air? Sure. Killing the planet? Please ... THAT is ignorant. The planet has survived impacts from humongous asteroids before. Trust me ... we aren't "killing" the planet.

This is of course a moot point ... because when I (and those who agree with me) are proven right hundreds of years in the future nobody reading this will be around to hear me say, "I told you so"

Andail · Sat 09/12/2006 21:10:23

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sat 09/12/2006 21:01:40
because when I (and those who agree with me) are proven right hundreds of years in the future nobody reading this will be around to hear me say, "I told you so"

This comment does not merit a reply, I think. I'm curious whether it fits Nacho's standards of reasonable and mature discussions.

Nacho, I don't think it's fair to say that you refuse to debate unless everybody reads one specific book that you happened to lay your hands on. There are, just like Scotch pointed out, quite a steady volume of studies and literature arguing that we are actually affecting our environment.

Adamski · Sat 09/12/2006 21:18:43

Darth, I see where we're getting stuck here. We're concerned about making our own habitat uninhabitable and causing our global civilisation to collapse, not the ultimate destruction of the planet (which is quite a bit more difficult to do).

MrColossal · Sat 09/12/2006 21:19:17

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sat 09/12/2006 21:01:40
The planet has survived impacts from humongous asteroids before.Ã,Â Trust me ... we aren't "killing" the planet.

You misunderstand "killing the planet" with "making it uninhabitable for humans" or at least "very uncomfortable for humans"

Damn you Adam!

Darth Mandarb · Sat 09/12/2006 21:21:41

Quote from: Andail on Sat 09/12/2006 21:10:23
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sat 09/12/2006 21:01:40
because when I (and those who agree with me) are proven right hundreds of years in the future nobody reading this will be around to hear me say, "I told you so"
This comment does not merit a reply, I think. I'm curious whether it fits Nacho's standards of reasonable and mature discussions.

And yet you replied to it

For clarification, I was just attempting to ligthen the "mood" in here a bit.

Seriously guys ... This doesn't need to turn into a "forum fight".

Let me tell you how I can calmly listen to opposing view points on this matter:

People base their beliefs and opinions on this matter from the scientific "facts" they perceive to be true. For every scientific "fact" I've heard supporting the claim, I've heard an opposing "fact". Just because you believe that your facts are right doesn't make them so compared to mine (and vice versa of course).

You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want.

Quote from: Adamski on Sat 09/12/2006 21:18:43
Darth, I see where we're getting stuck here. We're concerned about making our own habitat uninhabitable and causing our global civilisation to collapse, not the ultimate destruction of the planet (which is quite a bit more difficult to do).

Roger that man ... and I totally agree that pollution is bad and we should make all efforts to stop it! I certainly don't like breathing polluted air.

Andail · Sat 09/12/2006 21:22:20

Yeah, I also reacted on how the issue of making species extinct and the air disgusting to breath within our own life-time has been pushed away to some armageddon scenario which noone has mentioned in the first place.

EDIT:
Darth, your final comment there was nice to hear. I'm glad we can agree on one point.

Gregjazz · Sat 09/12/2006 21:23:25

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sat 09/12/2006 18:47:19
Global Warming is just another scare tactic to keep us all afraid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlnQSsbmJUg

Yup! Global warming, IMO, is comparable to the Y2K scare. But that doesn't that mean that I'm going to drive to McDonalds in my SUV limo (by myself) after writing this post...

EDIT: Whether you believe in global warming or not, I believe we still need to be energy efficient and mindful.

MrColossal · Sat 09/12/2006 21:30:34

So global warming is a myth and just a scare tactic but we should do what proponents of global warming say in limiting pollution and living more efficiently?

Gregjazz · Sat 09/12/2006 21:34:55

We still have other problems that we need to be mindful of. I don't like living with polluted air just as much as Darth or anyone else does. We still have the issue of peak oil to think about, etc.

Andail · Sat 09/12/2006 21:40:32

Guys, what exactly do you think we're debating here? Do you think what we trying to make you believe the earth will suddenly explode and that lava will rain from the sky?

Darth and Geoffkhan: You both think we should do something about pollution (you apparently don't care about endangered species and all that, so let's limit the debate to pollution). Well, we all need to change our way of living. The pollution won't go away if we don't change things. It will grow worse. That's how this debate started. As simple as that. Case closed.

EagerMind · Sat 09/12/2006 21:45:38

I agree that the "global warming is going to destroy the planet" claim is a bit of a scare tactic. We're talking about a 2 or 3 degree baseline temperature change. Doesn't seem like much, but a change like this will have a huge impact on the climate. And we don't know what the long-term effects will be, so much so that we don't even know whether temperatures will go up or down. Some countries may benefit from better weather, others may not - no one knows. But for better or worse, life will go on.

So the argument isn't whether we're "killing" the planet, but whether we're ok with destroying and polluting it to the point that everyone's life will be dramatically impacted. I guess you could compare the change in climate and the mass extinction of countless species of animals from human activities (over-fishing, deforestation, pollution, etc. etc. etc.) to that caused by natural events and say it's no big deal. But I'm not comfortable with such comparisons. I guess it's all about how much of a moral obligation each person feels to take care of the planet vice exploit it.