Change happens. Progress is optional.
Might adopt that as my tagline within my company :P
Originally Posted by gordo
Man made global warming is a myth.
Oh, did you know that plants thrive in a high CO2 environment and die off as CO2 concentration drops?
By the way, what ever happened to the whole world getting fried by the hole in the Ozone layer back in the 80s?
I predict this will become just another end of the world theory that never really played out in about 15 - 20 years. Either way, I suspect we'll have bigger fish to fry in other areas like natural resources running low and nut job leaders in 3rd world countries with warheads and missiles.
There you go, talk amongst yourselves now...
There's a great deal of (unpopular) science to back up your statement. The National Post newspaper up here in Canaduh has been running a series - "The Deniers" - on the the topic. Here's a link to some of their articles:
Originally Posted by John A
Climate change: The Deniers
Unfortunately human caused global warming has spun into a very large, profitable, industry with many government tax opportunities and as a result, I fear, it has developed a logic all its own.
best, gordon p
my print blog here: Quality In Print
how are we going to tax the factories in china and india to stop global warming. if you are going to tax a cow for farting then you better tax a chinese widget for its pollution. and that would be protectionist.
this year I would like a little global warming you should have seen my heat bill.
Originally Posted by mattf
I merely meant to suggest that we take a look at what had worked before and couple that with the knowledge that we've gained along the way. For example, the fabulous Medical gains that we've made over infectious diseases and deaths during childbirth. At least in the Western World, that is. These two items alone are greatly responsible for the increased longevity we enjoy today. A third main factor is the food supply.
If one compares a chart showing human population growth during the last century, and a chart showing fossil fuel consumption for the same period. I suspect one would find the charts to be strikingly similar. Then one might like to add in a third chart, a chart of World food production for the same period, just to see if it bears any resemblance to the previous two charts
You see, I believe that it is the use of fossil fuels that brought about our human population growth as well as allowed for most of our gains in technology and medicine. Fossil fuels freed mankind's hands from the toil of the plow and agriculture. In the 1870's farming made up about 53% of the labor force in the USA with a total population of about 28 million. Today agriculture is about 3% of the labor force and the USA has a total population of about 300 million. That's a lot of freed up hands to work on science and technology.
To change subjects to Oil,
If the "Peak Oil" theorists are to be believed, then we have likely already consumed 50% of the oil on the planet, the easy 50%. That leaves us with the difficult to extract 50%. Which may mean that we will no longer be able to support the human population that we have today with their predicted decline of oil supplies.
Don't get me wrong here, I couldn't agree more with "mattf's'" vision for the future. Perhaps the most inspiring I've read.
I only meant to point out, how unwilling we've become to live the lives that our own ancestors enjoyed.
Just in the remote case, that mankind's lives might ultimately prove to resemble the lives of our ancestors more than they do the lives we live today. Not to suggest we go backwards in direction. Mainly just to add more diversity of opinion to the range of discussion.
Thanks for pointing out my shortsightedness and adding to the discussion "mattf"
Its not shortsightedness, just a misunderstanding on what you meant by living like our ancestors. I'm guilty of that all the time when speaking about religion, don't get me riled up on that stuff :P
Originally Posted by otherthoughts
As you said, and your correct in this assumption, we created a society in which fossil fuels drove our productivity, efficiency and standard of living. During the creation of the American Constitution there was talk of comparing a society of "poor farmers" to "mercantilism", and as we know mercantilism won out. With the "poor farmers" mindset everyone is poor, but every has what they need to survive such as food, clothing and shelter. Mercantilism insures the constant production old, new, bad and good ideas. Of course bad ideas usually fail and the good strive on, as per normal capitalism methods.
The lives of our ancestors was completely different as I stated. However, as you pointed out, many things have dramatically changed in the past 200 years. Human population growth, food supply and finally energy consumption. There are a ton of studies and papers on food scarcity and the overwhelmingly "infinite" demand for these goods, great reads all around. What the whole subject gets down to is how to handle this growing problem. By 2050 our population will be over 9 billion. How can we handle that increase in the growing scarcity of resources? Can old methods of how we use to live make for better lives in the future? Maybe. The concept can be there but how we implement it to our current situation will be completely different.
Energy consumption has been on the forefront of issues in current events. The inflation of oil prices plus the tanking economy helped to fuel a lot of the current environmental efforts. Is that bad? Of course not. It promotes new ideas on how to produce energy. Many types have been in development for quite some time. Some examples are geothermal, wind power, solar power and so on. That type of technology will be the key to creating a different society. Can old ideas of how we once used energy create a different but better standard of living? Maybe, only time will tell.
Ignorance is bliss huh? Wonder which side though.....
Originally Posted by John A
Anyway, yes you are correct that high levels of CO2 help to create larger and thicker concentration of plants. What does that have to prove with your argument? We are coming out of an ice age, of course there was less CO2 because there was less plants to eat it up! Global warming exists, the issue people have had is if the cause is human based. The reason why a lot of scientists believe that it is caused by humans because the rate at which the world is warming is a lot faster then anything that has been documented, both within human perception and from the study of ice cores.
Ozone layer issues are still around, just because you don't hear it in the main-stream media doesn't mean the problem is gone. I guess people would rather watch American Idol and hear about that then doom and gloom. Whatever makes the sponsors happy.
The study of the ozone layer and its depletion around Antarctica is well documented and scientific groups are still studying it. Just look up "Ozone Hole Meteorology" or "Ozone Forecast" or maybe "Antarctica Forecast". Stating that in 15-20 years we won't be studying and trying to improve our effect on what we do to the planet shows how much you know about science in general.
Nut Job leaders in 3rd world countries with warheads and missiles? Well shucks and all, I wonder where those weapons come from? I wonder which country has such a large and robust military and weapon spending program.....
Alright that's my rant for the day.
"What the whole subject gets down to is how to handle this growing problem. By 2050 our population will be over 9 billion. How can we handle that increase in the growing scarcity of resources?"
I have my doubts, just as you do, that the planet can handle 9 billion people as the forecasters suggest represents our future. Moreover, I believe that the 6.7 billion of us existing today are too many.
You have cut to the heart of an issue that I would rather not have addressed so directly. Our human population is a very delicate subject to so many.
It is for exactly this reason that I included our human population when I suggested that what had worked in our past could be a guideline, along with all that we had learned along the way.
The best I might offer at the risk of offending some, is to say that if the 6.7 billion of us only had one child per family, in a generation's time, we might be only 3.3 billion. In another generation we might be 1.7 billion. I don't mean to offend those with more than one child by any means! It just seems logical to me that as our population grows, our problems grow.
I just believe that mankind's population is one of the larger players in mankind's dilemma.
Sorry if I offended anyone