Visit our Popular Forums

**hpeer** · 17-01-2010, 15:38

I would like to chime in with my 2 cents. I have not read through all the previous posts but the arguments seem to go like so, so many I have read on other forums. We all get tied up in arguing about this or that fact, the larger picture gets lost. I'm no scientist, wouldn't matter if I was, there is disagreement. For myself I have resolved it this following way.

If, on the one hand we are not facing RUNAWAY global warming and we err and take measures to combat it we will probably cause a global recession. That may kill many people and lower the overall standard of living.

If, on the other hand, those who are warning of RUNAWAY global warming are correct and DON'T take necessary measures then we face global consequences of catastrophic proportions. In the worse case scenario we could create such a strong feedback that water vapor could not be sustained and the entire planet would become akin to Venus. That was the thrust of the Hansen paper I linked above.

Who is right? I don't know I think of it as like playing Russian Roulette. The chances are 5/6ths that you will "win." But the consequences of "losing", small as they are, are such that no prudent person would engage in the practice.

Where I start to get worked up on this matter is that those who wish to play the game are forcing me and my off spring to suffer the consequences should they "lose." Frankly I don't take kindly to that. Play if you must, but not at my expense.

sailorboy1 · 17-01-2010, 16:21

isn't methane from cow farts a huge source in all this, why don't we hear about getting rid of the dairy and beef industry

sabray · 17-01-2010, 16:43

mmmm sorta again its about what is efficient. You can sware that c02 emmisions are harmless if you want. the economist says foreign oil isn't good like massive debt not good. The energy used to raise meat product is huge compared to vegetables.. so it s more efficient to eat vegetables then cows. Im not a vegetarian was once a dairy farmer but Im trying to be more efficient with our resources for a number of reasons.Risk and reward is with the lifestyle change.

barnakiel · 17-01-2010, 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by anjou

Not wishing to start a war of words over the politics of climate change, how do you see the changing climate affecting live afloat?

I read 'rise in hurricanes', so I go search the net, can't see any rise in hurricanes. Maybe more get detected but then again we have better tools today.

I read 'rise in sea level', so I go search the net and they say it is cyclical, it has happened before, and the rise is 6 mm per 10 years. Sure an average atoll accumulates more than 6 mm of old flip-flops material in the same time.

So, I cannot see any real climate change other than the one resulting from the fact that the climate is a process more than a fixed thing, so there are changes to it all the time.

But if you ask me what changes will result from the climate change then I would bet my money on taxes. Rise in taxes, off course.

b.

paradix · 17-01-2010, 16:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

isn't methane from cow farts a huge source in all this, why don't we hear about getting rid of the dairy and beef industry

Don, if you visit an agricutural economy like New Zealand you will certainly hear about it all the time!

And it's their burps that are the problem, not their farts so much...

As for the OP's question - I guess not keeping a cow aboard would be a good start...

sabray · 17-01-2010, 17:04

goats and lambs bleat all others for production of methane. I read recently a goat was sailing around the world on an open 60. some wackey record attempt. the goat only eats ivy I think as it is sailing that makes it carbon neutral. More farm animals should take up sailing.

George P · 17-01-2010, 17:49

Hello Group,
Not sure why I am going to reply to this thread, but here goes...I do believe we have a global polution problem and as our population grows it will get worse, there is no denying this. I have woken on many clear sunny days and looked into the sky and noticed the brown haze that the winds carry from city skylines. Multiplied by all the urban cities in the world....you get the idea, it must have an effect. But what is the effect and how if affects us is not quantifiable. I guess the only way to control polution is by controlling economic activity......I'll leave that loaded statement for another discussion. Of course, this is my opinion and belief. So with that, and the fact that the ocean water level at my dock where I keep my boat has not changed for as long as I can remember, I have a hard time accepting the global warming argument in its entirety especially when it comes from politians. When these guys start crying about global warming then I know there is another agenda up their sleeves like there always is.
In parting I would like to say that: I'll believe it (rising sea levels) when I see it and hopefully we can keep on with our economic activity until we can afford to cut loose from the dock and go sailing for good...until then...well...have another beer...

delmarrey · 17-01-2010, 18:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I read 'rise in hurricanes', so I go search the net, can't see any rise in hurricanes. Maybe more get detected but then again we have better tools today.

I read 'rise in sea level', so I go search the net and they say it is cyclical, it has happened before, and the rise is 6 mm per 10 years. Sure an average atoll accumulates more than 6 mm of old flip-flops material in the same time.

So, I cannot see any real climate change other than the one resulting from the fact that the climate is a process more than a fixed thing, so there are changes to it all the time.

But if you ask me what changes will result from the climate change then I would bet my money on taxes. Rise in taxes, off course.

b.

It's all this hot air and people chasing after it that's causing GW. If we should just let the wind blow us around and forget the politics..............._/)

For every action there is a reaction whether it be by mouth or by the weather. The weather comes and goes and there is little, to nothing, man can do about it! All it would take is one large meteor or Krakatau and it all changes.

Al Gore, himself, has created more CO2, although it doesn't matter, and burned more fuel in this campaign then I ever will in my life time. So, why should I have to pay. Lets cut out (re-elect) all the politicians and their wars and we'll cure GW.

Global Warming Fears Melting - by James M. Taylor - Environment & Climate News

**sneuman** · 17-01-2010, 19:56

What impresses me is the utter certainty among lay people that the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields of study are simply wrong.

If I were going to bet the planet's future, I'd want something more than a hunch and a hatred of Al Gore to go on.

But hey, that's just me.

delmarrey · 17-01-2010, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by sneuman

What impresses me is the utter certainty among lay people that the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields of study are simply wrong.

Would you trust a banker that changes the numbers in your account?

sabray · 17-01-2010, 20:36

I'm confused again. Were warming or were not can we agree that blasting c02 out aint a great idea and we could be more efficient with our/ my grand kids resources. Al gore aside shouldn't we look at how we can do better? THere is almost no controversy here except that some people feal warm and others like me are cold. Some like gore and others don't. In the US we are very wasteful. we should be the leaders in new technologies. WE should be leading in conservation. Id rather invest in energy managment then bailing out Aig or some other financial insurance giant. Is this effecting my sailing maybe. The chesapeake is windier then it used to be in the summer and the afternoon storms are more frequent in august I think.

SeattleBaba · 17-01-2010, 21:29

I heard that Al Gore will soon be a billionaire trading in permission slips to destroy the planet. Seattle is built on seven hills of glacial till - we can't tell how many ice ages there have been, but we do know that about 2 miles of ice covered the spot I am sitting on now about 11,000 years ago. Ice ages last abount 100,000 years, warm periods about 10,000 years. I for one am breathing heavelly and have my SUV idling in the driveway now in the hopes that it will warm things up!

delmarrey · 17-01-2010, 21:33

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

As one can see, according to scientist, there has been a GW about every 100k years and it looks as though we're about due for another one. So the question is: is it man made or just another cycle?

Also, it is suggested the warming increases precede the CO2 increases. So who is one to believe? I look at the evidence and conclude it's the earth cycling and the politicians are trying to capitalize on it.

Sabray, Government is wasteful not the people. Don't generalize! Me and mine have been recycling and conserving since the 50's, and my parents of the depression before me. What other countries in the last 250 years has grown in health and technologies as well as the US? Maybe Germany but they lost the war! Now they send our efforts overseas for $$$$$$ as our hard working intelligent forefathers rot in their graves.

Hit on China for a while and see what answer you get back.