Author
|
Topic: Global Warming Denialist (Read 25389 times)
|
|
|
|
|
Angelfish
Enlightened
 Offline
Posts: 568
|
Even with one child per family rules (assuming most people live) it would take hundreds of years to get the population back down to where it was in the 1800s. And, when you consider how wasteful our society is, it's possible to greatly reduce our foot print (including carbon output) without lowering the population. I don't think it's likely to happen, but it's possible in theory.
You're wrong. If for example we reduce our carbon footprint by 20% right now, in 2025 we'll have the same carbon footprint again. Why? Because then the population of the world will have risen by 20% again. Add to that that third world countries will be more developed by then (and all have cars, electricity etc) and you've got the whole carbon footprint issue all over again. The only way to lower our carbon footprint is to reduce the world population, or to maintain the current world population but emit less CO2. Increasing the population is not an option.
Then again, it remains to be proven that CO2 is causing the global warming. Why not something else that we haven't been able to prove yet?
One big problem with the current debate (aside from the zealotry) is that there's so little accurate information on temperature through our history. Don't believe me? Try to find out what the temperature was in your home town on June 16, 1953. (I just picked a date at random, there's nothing important about that day.) I checked recently and most of the cities in my country do not have reliable temperature records going back more than thirty years. The ones that do have temperature records for that long do not show any upward trend.
So it amuses me when people claim that the Earth's global average temperature is changing by 0.1 degrees. In my opinion, we don't have accurate data on which to base that statement.
True, before the last ice age we had a huge spike in temperatures. Higher than we're currently experiencing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
... or using electrical cars powered through nuclear, wind, and solar.
And I'm still not clear how using grown fuels will continue to raise CO2 levels, unless the effect is to promote deforestation.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jaychant
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 432
Please visit my homepage
|
OK, listen, you dorks: You are NOT top scientists, much less climatologists, and you do NOT know everything! Before you question what every climatologist is saying about the climate, become a climatologist yourself.
Unfortunately, using grown biofuels instead of fossil fuels will warm up the earth for centuries to come, so I think you need to restate it again.
Right now, there is no way to diminish the carbon footprint except going back to horse and carriage for transport, or having strict birth control rules (ie. 1 child per family)
OK, stop being a smart ass. You know exactly what I mean. We need to switch over to clean energies instead of oil and coal.
One big problem with the current debate (aside from the zealotry) is that there's so little accurate information on temperature through our history. Don't believe me? Try to find out what the temperature was in your home town on June 16, 1953. (I just picked a date at random, there's nothing important about that day.) I checked recently and most of the cities in my country do not have reliable temperature records going back more than thirty years. The ones that do have temperature records for that long do not show any upward trend.
The tempurature in a single city is not a good representation of GLOBAL climate change.
Also, scientists have reliable ways to find the approximate temperature from 10,000 years ago. Sure, they can't find the exact temperature on any one particular day, but that data is unimportant. Climatologists have researched it for at least 50 years, and they have so far concluded that up until the 20th century, temperatures have remained steady, and then in the 20th century temperatures all of a sudden shot up. Climatologists are almost certain (there isn't a such thing as "certain" in science) that Earth is getting warmer, the warming is due to CO2, and it's gonna be bad if we don't do something about it.
Nuclear is the only option in that case. The production of solar cells and windmills is likely to produce more CO2 that can be saved in the lifetime of the solar cell or windmill.
What are you talking about? As long as we are not using fossil fuels to help produce the materials, production of these things doesn't contribute in the slightest to the amount of CO2 in the air.
If CO2 emission is coming from fossil fuel burning, then you use a lot of fossil fuel operating the harvesters when you crop the corn for something like ethanol, for example.
Again, thinking in the short term. The goal is to switch entirely to alternative energies, not only partly.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zeep-Eeep
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Good Grief
|
Jay, you obviously didn't read my post. I said I checked the temperature records for most of the cities in the country, not a single town. We're talking around a two dozen cities covering an area of several million square kilometers.
Second, one does not have to be a top scientist to look at data and point out giant gaping holes in it.
Third, the GAT records show temperature going down for the past four years. This is why many buzz-word panic-inducing sales people use the term climate change, rather than global warming these days.
And, Angelfish, you're not thinking in the fourth dimension. If we put in the one child per family rule and reduce the environmental foot print of each person, our affect on the environment will go down over the long term. I'm not talking a short-term plan here, it would have to take place over multiple generations. Also, you're over-looking the possibility that people could reduce their foot print by 20% over twenty years, have a kid and *continue* to reduce their foot print (per person) another 20% over the next twenty years. The amount of impact a person makes on the environment does not have to be a constant. Nor does population growth.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What sound does a penguin make?
|
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Even with one child per family rules (assuming most people live) it would take hundreds of years to get the population back down to where it was in the 1800s. And, when you consider how wasteful our society is, it's possible to greatly reduce our foot print (including carbon output) without lowering the population. I don't think it's likely to happen, but it's possible in theory.
I may be looking through Gene Roddenberry's rose colored glasses, but I think technology will save the day when it comes to global warming. No need to pull a China and start legislating family sizes. Techs such as hydrogen fuel cell and electric vehicles will make a huge impact as the technology evolves and improves. With genetic engineering we may be able to grow CO2 "scrubbers", designer bacteria grown for specific purposes.
With the expotential growth of technology, the early 21st century technology may look like the horse and wagon days within 50 to 75 years.
One big problem with the current debate (aside from the zealotry) is that there's so little accurate information on temperature through our history. ...
Speaking of zealotry, my Father, a creationist fundie, claims the earth is following cyclic tempertaue change. Since he lives in the pacific northwest (USA) ,he loves to report just how much snow they're getting each year. Apparently, the last several years have seen record setting snowpacks and for him, evidence that global warming is hogwash. I'd argue that more moisture in the air from warmer ocean climates might do that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
