The problem with science is that nearly everything is speculation until it's already happened and/or been documented enough. The law of gravity was just a theory at one time, and is only a law now, so it can be broken given the proper circumstances. The same goes for global warming/climate change. It's just a theory, and even if we run simulations that state mankind is likely responsible for a significant portion of it, it's still just theory until proven to be the case ex post facto. That being said, if you really believe this I encourage you to gather all the finances you have, maybe even take out a few loans, and start insuring people up and down the gulf for way less than others are charging. If, in fact we haven't contributed much to climate change, you'll likely make a killing in the long run and come out a millionaire or billionaire. If you're wrong, you'll get killed, maybe along with some people, and loose everything. Imo, if the insurance companies are pulling out and raising rates, going in wouldn't be the best bet. But why listen to me? Put your money where you post is!
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
While it is a theory, there is a lot of evidence supporting it. Also, spending money now is like insurance. Mehbe my house has never burnt down, but my mom still carries fire insurance, just in case. That's life.
In the words of my crazy environmental economics professor: "In the scientific community the general consensus is that global climate change does exist, the only debate now is to what extent things will change, and how fast." That's paraphrased, of course, but that's what she says, and she does this stuff for her living, so I trust her opinion somewhat.
I think you're only looking for sources that say what you want to hear...mehbe you should look at some stuff from the other side.
It's just a theory, and even if we run simulations that state mankind is likely responsible for a significant portion of it, it's still just theory until proven to be the case ex post facto.
I agree to this.
Even IF you didn't follow the GW theory. Are you honestly telling me that you'd rather drink from a polluted river and breath noxious chemicals in your air? You'd rather eat food tainted with poison and willingly feed that to your children?
The whole idea behind the GW community is to push conservation and "greener" tech/industry. They wouldn't give a rats *** if you didn't believe in the theory, but lived a sustainable life. There is only a finite amount of chemical energy on this planet and curse anyone that would be so selfish to say "Give me it, it's mine" and/or "I don't care." I too wouldn't care if all you did was practice a little sustainability. I'm not asking you to go to life before oil - I'm asking you to wake up and move on to life after oil. You can't do that when you're stuck complaining about a theory that can't be validated until we've destroyed ourselves.
My final point is..... GW, originally, was NOT theorized by a politician - not even an environmentalist. It was theorized by a mathematician. And then further worked on when two fellows discovered and validated the Stefan-Boltzmann law (and it's constant).
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all its students.
Whenever someone points out that not all scientists t agree on global warming I'm reminded of a guy I used to work with who had a science degree, chemestry I think it was, and had opinions on all kinds of things, but openly admited that he didn't have the attention span to look at facts, but would give his opinoin on all kinds of things, my point is that just because someone is useing their title as a scientist, doesn't meen that they know what they are talking about or are giving an opinion on a field that they have even studied.
Nobody wants to hear, let alone believe, it. Lets just look then:
Personally, I think we are poking at the bear and don't even know it.
Sorry if I'm piling on, but it is a ripe topic
I've given up trying to argue from that standpoint... I used to, but people are just so damned set in their ways. But, usually when I go from the pollution in general - it catches people off guard. They're stuck arguing that GW doesn't exist - I'm arguing that if you turn your car on in your garage, the pollution will kill you
The explosive population problem is also a pretty scary problem - perhaps that will kill us before GW does - then we'll all feel like as$es putting our efforts into hot air rather than television (in reference to a funny statistic showing TV reduces sexual activity ).
Sorry, just taking the opportunity to say - awesome avatar Futurama happens to be my favorite cartoon
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all its students.
I also have my problems with global warming, in that while there can't be any doubt that man's activities would contribute to such a thing, I feel it's the same contribution a grain of rice makes to a meal. Sure, it's there, but how much of it is really man? I just read an article where they found that a single moose burps enough methane per year to equal the same pollution produced by a car that travels about 21,000 miles. Is the answer to put catalytic converters on moose? And yes, that's both ends of the moose that would need the converter. Add in all the other methane produced by digestion in the world, and that's a considerable amount of greenhouse gas being produced by nature. Let's also examine the lowly volcano, which spews enough pollution into the air to travel around the world. I remember when that volcano in the Phillipines erupted in the early 90s, that destroyed Clark Air Base. I was in Germany at the time, and the matter thrown in the air could be seen in the amazing sunsets. This matter had to travel to German via the US due to the direction of the jet stream. And the Sun? It pumps more energy into the atmosphere per minute than man has produced ever, every minute.
My whole point here is, global warming is more likely a normal planetary event, not a manmade event. This planet periodically has times when it is cold, and times when it is hot. They have found tropical flora in the Artic ice even. My own opinion on global warming is it is a money making hot topic and nothing else.
This being said, I do think we should be cutting pollution when and where we can, and we should be moving to renewable energy sources instead of using what may be a finite resource as fire fuel (I've read the occasional odd article that some scientists suspect crude is in constant production by the planet and not from dead dinosaurs, will therefore never actually run out although it would be possible to use it all, then have to wait for more to be made). Crude is used in medication and plastics, which we need far more than we need crude for heat or motive power, so IMO we need to get rid of stationary crude uses first, then move on to motive uses, while striving to increase efficiency on the motive sources. A real, proven problem is smog and particulate pollution causing asthma, water pollution, ect, and these are the areas we should concentrate on. Not some pie in the sky money sink like global warming where you can trade carbon credits to "fix the problem" instead of actually reducing pollution and actually fixing the problem. I feel global warming is just a way to look like you are doing something while actually changing nothing. Besides, if we do make efforts to cut pollution and curb the use of crude, these actions would also affect the emissions that is supposed to be causing global warming.
And so far as the objective scientist goes, those same turkeys were also claiming that we'd need snowplows in Florida by 2020, back in the 1970s.