Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on September 3, 2005 By Draginol In Politics


Source

The people who blame global warming on CO2 emissions have a lot in common with the people who claim that intelligent design is a "theory". Which is ironic since they politically disagree on almost everything else.

Whenever I get into a discussion on global warming with someone in person, they are almost always, universally, completely devoid of first-hand knowledge on global climate history, other factors that can cause the warming and cooling of the earth.  They often sound, remarkably, like the people who come to my door trying to "save" me.  They refer to various unnamed "scientists" and "experts" who have told them what to think and therefore believe it. 

I can be talked into believing that the Earth's temperature has risen in the past several decades. But I am not convinced that it has anything to do with CO2 emissions.  There's very little evidence that the earth's atmosphere has warmed any measurable amount globally.  But surface temperatures are a different thing.  Urban sprawl and humans covering increasing percentages of the earth's surface with cement and other heat-sink materials could certainly create local increases in temperature.  Go into a city in the summer and you can definitely feel it. 

Incidentally, I'm not arguing that human habitation of the surface is causing global warming either.  I am saying that there may be other explanations to it -- if it's happening.  We are, btw, in an inter-glacial period.  That is, we are actually currently in an ice age. The earth is currently cooler than it has typically been when looking at the earth historically over the past 100 million years.

We simply don't know very much on global climate yet.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to decrease our impact on the environment. We should try to cut down all our impacts whether that be CO2 emissions, sulfur emissions, CFCs, etc.  But we shouldn't do it because of global warming.  We should do it because we simply don't know what impact it will have on the environment.


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Sep 03, 2005
Dramatic climate changes are a natural part of the planets history. Natural causes like Volcano’s and those massive undersea methane eruptions that supposedly sink ships and down planes in the Devils triangle certainly take their toll on the ozone. Hell in a few hundred years the magnetic poles are supposed to switch leaving us exposed to cosmic rays from the sun for a thousand years.

But to say that all the various ozone depleting gasses that Humans are responsible for is having no effect is to me a little naïve. Hell the roommate I had in college probable punched a few holes in the ozone all by himself.

Nature can be both delicate and resilient and a little secretive about what it’s going to be sensitive to. Whether were hastening the inevitable, increasing the level of climate change or having almost no effect at all, it’s not something we can easily take back, the stakes are just to high.

"But we shouldn't do it because of global warming. We should do it because we simply don't know what impact it will have on the environment".

What difference does in make why people do the right thing? Just that we do. Just ask the president if we need to know the real reason we should do something right. I say we get Bob Dole to come out and say CO2 emissions cause ED. The streets would be flooded with men on bikes.
on Sep 03, 2005
I do not think anyone would say that global warming is caused by CO2. Scientists, except the cranks and wackos, pretty much agree that global warming is a natural phenomenon that has been occuring since the end of the Ice Age. However, they also contend that CO2 is accelerating this phenomenon beyond the otherwise natural rate. That's the distinction. And, I do believe we should cut back on our CO2 emissions for exactly that reason, in addition to all other impacts they have, including health related asthmas, carcinogens, etc. and whatever impacts they have on flora and fauna.
on Sep 03, 2005
This is why September 19th is so important for the future of our planet. Link

edit: Holy spaghetti! People are required to click on the source link!
on Sep 03, 2005

I do not think anyone would say that global warming is caused by CO2. Scientists, except the cranks and wackos, pretty much agree that global warming is a natural phenomenon that has been occuring since the end of the Ice Age.

We are IN an ice age right now.  It's just an inter-glacial period.  It is going to get cold again at some point, we just don't know when.

Though I do agree with you - I'd like to see man's impact on the environment minimized.

on Sep 04, 2005
Tremendous straight line graph. There again, it might be because your X- axis values aren't regular. Actually, more than just being irregular, they go up to begin with and then down later on. Hmm.
on Sep 04, 2005

Simply put: The number of people live the life of a pirate on the sea has had a dramatic impact on the global temperatures.

As the # of pirates decreases, the temperature increases.  If you really care about the environment, you'll start wearing a pirate outfit to work.

on Sep 04, 2005
I wonder what they'll blame the next ice age on. Depleted uranium? No, wait, that's new. Hmmm. What were the Conservatives up to 20,000 years ago?
on Sep 04, 2005
'As the # of pirates decreases, the temperature increases.'
Not between 1820 and 1860. (See my point above.)

And 17 pirates in the year 2000? Obviously this doesn't take software pirates into consideration!
on Sep 04, 2005
If you really care about the environment, you'll start wearing a pirate outfit to work.


I'll dig out my pirate outfit and gear poste haste for tuesday morning's return to work. I do care about the environment. Thanks for the tip, Brad.
on Sep 04, 2005
I have to wonder about the "increasing temperatures" when I bundle up like Ralphie's brother and go out my door in January to shovel the ten inches of ice and snow off my walk, and my nose hair freezes in about three seconds.
I guess it may be happening, but even if it is, I don't really think we're the sole reason for it, as some of the more fanatical whackos seem to.
You know the kind....the ones who say the planet Earth would be soooooo much better off if humanity just up and went away. The guy who praised the tsunami last year for wiping the people, the beach chairs and commercialism off the beaches leaps to mind. Or the guy who said we should all go back to living like cavemen if we want to save the Earth...those kinds of nutcakes.

Now, when it comes to environmental issues like the cutting of the rainforests (remember the old days, when they were just "jungles"?), I get a little more Green. After all....most of the air we breathe on this world is generated in those forests, and I do like a little air now and then, just to take the edge off. I would really miss it if it wasn't there anymore.
on Sep 04, 2005
Is anyone here a meteorologist or environmental scientist? If not, then your opinion on global warming doesn't matter and you SHOULD listen to the experts. I don't claim to know anything about how to write programs that skin windows, yet the people who do would have us believe they're environmental scientists too.

No disrespect intended, Brad, but neither you nor I have the education to be forming scientific opinions about Global Warming. However, those who ARE environmental scientists, meteorologists, etc, do almost to a person believe Global Warming is the result of man's activities in this case. Where are your credentials to credibly disupte that?
on Sep 04, 2005
Lotherius: What I have heard is more that the scientists that support the "CO2 is bad" camp are much louder because that is the current "popular" stance. Many scientists have said that they don't think man has much impact on the environment, but they did not dare to be interviewed in fear of loosing their jobs (we had quite a bit of debate around this in Norway a while back). The thing is this: As far as scientists can tell, the amount of CO2 we release is very insignificant compared to the amount already there, and CO2 is very insignificant in keeping heat in compared to for instance water. So they are trying to find out if CO2 can have some kind of cascading effect. To say that most environmental scientists belive that global warming is being accelerated in any significant way by our CO2 emissions just is not true.
on Sep 04, 2005
I'm not an economist, either, but I think people can form their own opinions from the information they have at hand. Were we only allowed to write about what we are experts in, I wonder what JU would look like.

For that matter, no one would be able to dispute anyone with letters behind their name.
on Sep 04, 2005
who says fedex don't care about the environment?



argggggh
on Sep 04, 2005


So I said the wrong thing on New Orleans thread yesterday. Love KingBees illustrations in general. Link up there was refreshlingly humurous proof of a point I was also somewhat hoping could relieve my enviromental conscious a bit. CV of Bob Hendersons full of its own highlights. Definately being enjoying spaghetti next time I eat em again.


The only skinners entitled to talk environment should be skinning drawings, not software, or stop arguing environmentally, true. Unless pirate/spaghetti ratio proves in a tattoo that computers are good for environment, which they can be in some cases, maybe, if the right people use em. Preciate your not recommending CO2 abuse. Not a bad approach. Almost feels icy now, (relaxes)

3 Pages1 2 3