I lean towards George Carlin's train of thought on this one:
[video=youtube_share;7W33HRc1A6c]http://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c[/video]
[video=youtube_share;7W33HRc1A6c]http://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c[/video]
global warming
- Thread starter Stu
- Start date
Did you know that a fungus capable of breaking down and digesting polyurethane was discovered fairly recently?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pestalotiopsis_microspora
http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/08/04/fungus.eats.plastic/index.html
Cool.
The other thing to consider is that landfills may one day become 'treasure troves' for natural resources. If we take the planet's waste from 10-50 years earlier, how much scrap metal and other valuable bits and pieces are lying dormant.
It's a bit like this so called 'peak oil' crisis which text books from the past would have suggested would be around now. What most people overlooked (perhaps not Lomborg) was that our ability to discover and extract oil would improve - especially as the commercial demands continued. There's also synthetic oil, although my understanding is it's quite energy intensive to produce.
Now is a bad time to question peak oil with the desperate signs all around us, Lee. A couple examples: fracking is one of the most desperate attempts humans have ever made at extracting a natural resource, a type of desperation we wouldn't need if there were nearly as much oil as the major exporters (specifically OPEC) would have us believe; and on the other side of things, the USA will soon become the world's top oil producer in large part due to the decline of other major producers (i.e. Saudi Arabia) all around the world.
The age of oil is winding down, whether you want to call it peak oil or something else. Ironically, it is perhaps the worst results of global warming that will provide some temporary relief to our overwhelming thirst for oil, as major countries have plans on how to extract oil from the Arctic ice cap once it melts away, which is looking closer and closer. I remember how a few years ago it was said that we might not have any summer Arctic ice by 2100, a couple years ago it was changed to 2050, and now some estimates put it as low as 2020.
It seems denial of peak oil is directly correlated to denial of global warming. If our oil reserves are so stable, we shouldn't be planning for a desperate grab of Arctic resources. If catastrophic climate change isn't happening, we would have no way to get these resources. Denial of both is key to increasing corporate profits at a grand cost to the entire human race.
The age of oil is winding down, whether you want to call it peak oil or something else. Ironically, it is perhaps the worst results of global warming that will provide some temporary relief to our overwhelming thirst for oil, as major countries have plans on how to extract oil from the Arctic ice cap once it melts away, which is looking closer and closer. I remember how a few years ago it was said that we might not have any summer Arctic ice by 2100, a couple years ago it was changed to 2050, and now some estimates put it as low as 2020.
It seems denial of peak oil is directly correlated to denial of global warming. If our oil reserves are so stable, we shouldn't be planning for a desperate grab of Arctic resources. If catastrophic climate change isn't happening, we would have no way to get these resources. Denial of both is key to increasing corporate profits at a grand cost to the entire human race.
There's two sides to this really.
The view that peak oil is no longer a relevant theory http://science.time.com/2013/05/15/the-iea-says-peak-oil-is-dead-thats-bad-news-for-climate-policy/
and the side that says peak oil is still here perhaps, but not for a longer time.
You are perhaps right about global warming, although as I said before, it's no longer a relevant question. We've identified that oil isn't a sustainable resource, ergo we (as a planet) need to figure out a solution.
Fracking, like nuclear power, may well prove to be something in time we can tame.
The other approach, I guess would be a human retreat from Earth (so interact less, use less and so on), however that seems unlikely. I think technology may be able to sort out our problems, although we should never lose respect for Mother Earth.
The view that peak oil is no longer a relevant theory http://science.time.com/2013/05/15/the-iea-says-peak-oil-is-dead-thats-bad-news-for-climate-policy/
and the side that says peak oil is still here perhaps, but not for a longer time.
You are perhaps right about global warming, although as I said before, it's no longer a relevant question. We've identified that oil isn't a sustainable resource, ergo we (as a planet) need to figure out a solution.
Fracking, like nuclear power, may well prove to be something in time we can tame.
The other approach, I guess would be a human retreat from Earth (so interact less, use less and so on), however that seems unlikely. I think technology may be able to sort out our problems, although we should never lose respect for Mother Earth.
What about the side that says peak oil is happening now, right before our eyes, but society has lulled itself into not noticing? It's pretty hard to miss OPEC's faking of their reserve count, the new decline of worldwide oil sources, and the sheer desperation with which oil companies are acting to get out every last bit they can while it's still reasonably cheap.
There's no perhaps to global warming. It's happening. It's here. It's having an immediate, profound, marked impact on how we live our very lives on a day to day basis. And it's probably past the point where we can find a solution. There may now be no reversing catastrophic climate change except time, potentially millions of years.
There's no perhaps to global warming. It's happening. It's here. It's having an immediate, profound, marked impact on how we live our very lives on a day to day basis. And it's probably past the point where we can find a solution. There may now be no reversing catastrophic climate change except time, potentially millions of years.
Oh... at risk at starting an argument that has somehow turned political in the news....
There is no factual scientific proof global warming is man made. Years before Gore was spouting off about global warming he was spouting off that another ice age was coming. Anyway, there is scientific proof that the earth has heating and cooling cycles and that it has gone through these long before mankind was ever even around.
There is no factual scientific proof global warming is man made. Years before Gore was spouting off about global warming he was spouting off that another ice age was coming. Anyway, there is scientific proof that the earth has heating and cooling cycles and that it has gone through these long before mankind was ever even around.
Manbearpig Gore has done a great job of profiting off of all of it too.
And yes, when I was growing up all the predictions were we were heading back into an ice age.
People need to research the term "theory" as it applies to science. A scientific theory isn't the same as a "theory" Joe Nobody on the street has. Theories in science are proven by a plethora of data and logic. The only reason the term "theory" is used instead of "law" comes down to whether or not it can be replicated.
The only thing arguing against scientific theory does, is expose your lack of understanding about the whole thing and make you look like an idiot, which we seem to have an abundance of in this country!
- The Big Bang is only theory because people can't reproduce condensing that much matter in one space, then watching it explode into a universe.
- Evolution is only a theory because humans don't have the ability to reproduce 4 billion years of life.
- Climate change is only a theory because humans don't have another planet with the same conditions to reproduce the effects.
The only thing arguing against scientific theory does, is expose your lack of understanding about the whole thing and make you look like an idiot, which we seem to have an abundance of in this country!
The whole global warming thing is bullshit.
Sure, it's happening (probably); and sure, human activity has something to do with it. But so what?
If you look at the Earth's geological record, dramatic climate change is certainly very characteristic of this planet. The question that seems to be overlooked is: is climate change something that needs to be avoided?
The mentality at present almost seems to wish that the Earth operate like some air-conditioned building, with no scope for variation. I personally would be interested to see the climate change to the extent that the Sahara region, of Nth Africa, become forested, as it used to be when the Earth's climate was warmer.
http://www.greatglobalwarming.com/
Oh and why even worry about global warming? The next Gamma-ray burst from a dying star or invisible black hole, the next quadrant over will bake all life on earth anyway. Not like we have a chance in hell to keep that from happening. So...sure fight it but its inevitable.
Oh and why even worry about global warming? The next Gamma-ray burst from a dying star or invisible black hole, the next quadrant over will bake all life on earth anyway. Not like we have a chance in hell to keep that from happening. So...sure fight it but its inevitable.
I'd like to know just what is considered a perfect Earth climate.
There has to be some sort of benchmark being used after all. Claims can't be made that it is changing for the better or worse unless there is an ideal benchmark in mind.
There has to be some sort of benchmark being used after all. Claims can't be made that it is changing for the better or worse unless there is an ideal benchmark in mind.
Yeah just no proof. Weather Channel president says humans have the same effect on earths climate as someone farting in a hurricane. Kind of think hed be the one to know.