AceInfinity
Emeritus, Contributor
Watch this.
An Analytical Perspective - Global Warming
- Thread starter AceInfinity
- Start date
Watch this.
That's just more bull, if in fact Global Warming(Climate Change seems to be the new term) is caused by humans and not a natural process as has happened repeatedly in the past there is no amount of money that will correct it at this late stage..............................................
I'm always confused as to why a scientific theory, with well documented and well supported evidence, has become an issue of political belief in the US.
We've obviously had a major impact on the environment, but rising sea levels are not the main threat. The outcome as described in the video is a rather simplistic view; most political discussions of global warming usually are. More pressing is the decline of local animal populations due to pollution - if bee's die out, then we have a more urgent catastrophe and famine in poorer countries.
We've obviously had a major impact on the environment, but rising sea levels are not the main threat. The outcome as described in the video is a rather simplistic view; most political discussions of global warming usually are. More pressing is the decline of local animal populations due to pollution - if bee's die out, then we have a more urgent catastrophe and famine in poorer countries.
That's a easy one, we keep throwing money at supposed fixes only to find out billions of dollars later the fix is more hazardous to the environment then the original problem.
Electric cars are one example, they're green except for the battery manufacturing process.......oops
Nuclear power is another, nice and clean no pollution burned into the atmosphere...............oh wait what are we going to do with the waste for 50,000 years..........
Wind turbines are the answer to that right?...........opps again they ruin the habitat and kill thousands of innocent birds.....................
Are there things we should and could do yes but generally not what gets passed by congress since the lobbing process is bought and paid for by someone looking to make a profit off any bill passed........................................
Electric cars are one example, they're green except for the battery manufacturing process.......oops
Nuclear power is another, nice and clean no pollution burned into the atmosphere...............oh wait what are we going to do with the waste for 50,000 years..........
Wind turbines are the answer to that right?...........opps again they ruin the habitat and kill thousands of innocent birds.....................
Are there things we should and could do yes but generally not what gets passed by congress since the lobbing process is bought and paid for by someone looking to make a profit off any bill passed........................................
Yes, absolutely. There has to be a better option than just accepting the power of lobbyists though.
AceInfinity
Emeritus, Contributor
You misinterpreted what he is saying. He's not talking about whether or not humans caused it, but rather whether we take action vs. whether we take no action, based on whether or not Global warming is true or false...
You're a 50% (column B) thinker I see... In the end, money isn't worth anything, compared to life on earth. That's something more people need to consider. Global warming is true, and unfortunately, usually the only way to get things done in today's world is to spend money. There's hardly enough time to complain or procrastinate about taking action the way I see it.
You need to make sacrifices for the long term benefit. I highly doubt that creating a single battery is as bad as half of the other things we do, along with running a vehicle and letting it pollute the atmosphere for an average of 3-5hours per day per person perhaps, where I live anyways. Considering the fact that gas vehicles also use a battery, I don't really see what your point would be here about electric vs. gas powered vehicles. :confused2: Electric is a step in the right direction, unfortunately GM took a bunch of them to the recycling depot many years ago because they would have lost money. Which only further supports my point that people who consider money over taking an appropriate action, need to re-think the scenario in my opinion.
Nothing is going to be perfect, you can't expect it to be. The whole video above was trying to choose maybe the most appropriate, or "best" solution, to a problem. This is why I posted the video, and why I agree and support his way of thinking. Not taking action, and having global warming end life as we know it on this planet, is really not an option for me.
And here would be my point as well. Power in numbers usually outweighs the power of any small political party. Hence, why the guy in the video in the first post even made his video and put it out there...
Last edited:
Trouble
BSOD Kernel Dump Senior Analyst, Contributor
I wish Global Climate Change was the only thing we had to worry about.
There are so many problems this planet faces
diminishing resources in general.... arable land (suitable to support crops), ocean resources (things we can eat), famine, disease, drinkable water, and the list goes on and on.
And until someone stops and realizes that most if not all of these problems are rooted in the fact that we (as a planet) continue to add about a billion or so people every decade or so to the global population, there is very little hope for us as a species.
I worry about my five year old grand daughter and perhaps her children and what we might be leaving them to call home.
There are so many problems this planet faces
diminishing resources in general.... arable land (suitable to support crops), ocean resources (things we can eat), famine, disease, drinkable water, and the list goes on and on.
And until someone stops and realizes that most if not all of these problems are rooted in the fact that we (as a planet) continue to add about a billion or so people every decade or so to the global population, there is very little hope for us as a species.
I worry about my five year old grand daughter and perhaps her children and what we might be leaving them to call home.
AceInfinity
Emeritus, Contributor
It's not the only thing, correct, but the problem is that people don't work together because change always seems to mean that it's taking away from another's payday. People want change, but at their own sacrifice nobody seems to be willing in today's world. There are a lot of problems, and also a lot of people. We procrastinate, and talk about change for self-interest, not for the outcome of the change itself externally most often. The only way to make a problematic list "shrink," is to deal with things sequentially. Obviously it's not like a personal todo list because there are a lot more people in the world than just your own self, and thus if the effort was made, this big list of issues could probably quickly vanish (for whatever on the list has a possible solution).
Change seems impossible in today's world, and that's the problem, we're lazy, and self-centered.
The reason for this is because everybody lives for today, we don't plan for the new generation's future. It's all about living our own lives, because as long as Global Warming or whatever crisis that we might be able to prevent, doesn't happen in our own lifetime, nobody is willing to take the action because it's considered a waste of time.
I quoted you on that last sentence because I couldn't agree more with that statement.
In order for us to be on this planet for longevity, I can't see how it would be possible getting there, if we're all short-term thinkers.
Change seems impossible in today's world, and that's the problem, we're lazy, and self-centered.
The reason for this is because everybody lives for today, we don't plan for the new generation's future. It's all about living our own lives, because as long as Global Warming or whatever crisis that we might be able to prevent, doesn't happen in our own lifetime, nobody is willing to take the action because it's considered a waste of time.
I quoted you on that last sentence because I couldn't agree more with that statement.
In order for us to be on this planet for longevity, I can't see how it would be possible getting there, if we're all short-term thinkers.
Last edited:
Don't mind if I'm still a little skeptical, when I was in high school in the early 70's these were just some of the predictions from notable scientists of the day.
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist Earth Day 1970
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970
“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist Earth Day 1970
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970
“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson
AceInfinity
Emeritus, Contributor
I think I'm misunderstanding you perhaps. Are you saying that Global Warming is not true then? There's lots of supporting evidence, and even further evidence that it relates back to human actions on this earth. I am of the belief that is is a true phenomena, but I also believe that people don't take it seriously enough to take the necessary actions to make even satisfactory level advancements to create a fighting solution against it, or they procrastinate because they don't see it affecting them as an individual, or perhaps they want to utilize the fear behind it to make money or win an election (*whistles*). To any (monkey) in the political world, it's used as a buzzword or catchphraze to act important and pretend to care, and that's the problem; nobody really does what they say they will do to change something these days.
Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? :)
You can't play dice with the fact that others have made false statements in the odds that one may never be true. All you have to do is use your own judgement. Those were beliefs and opinions based on perspectives and perceptions for the most part. This is a statement about our environment that has an amplitude of supporting evidence to support its truth (Global Warming).
If you take the video for what it was MEANT to portray however... All he is saying is this:
Better be safe than sorry... - The cost of Global Warming being something that we could act upon to fight against, but neglecting to take any action, by far outweighs the cost of taking action (whether it's true/false, or whether we can/cannot do something about it).
Even if old statements were only just rumors. I don't believe it is a reason or an excuse to be lazy when it comes to "preparation" for something that is not ridiculously implausible. :thumbsup2:
C'mon though! The US already blows billions of dollars into the military for a silly war that might not happen for years unless they want to go to another 3rd world country to steal some oil... I can't see why people would complain about spending a bit of money to fight Global Warming in any way possible to humans if money is what it takes. It's hard to find people that don't have a second motive, and especially among the "higher ups" these days although. Doing something for the greater cause is unfamiliar territory and has been for a while as far as I can tell. :r1:
Enough of my mockery for the government though. It's all the same whichever country or region you talk about. People are usually greedy and don't like change or making sacrifices. I could sell my house to help fight Global Warming if I wanted to, I just don't know how I could fight it. What people don't understand is that it takes more than one person to fight something that big; I am only one person, and who knows if my efforts would even be put to good use or added upon by others? The question really comes down to who actually cares.
~Ace
Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? :)
You can't play dice with the fact that others have made false statements in the odds that one may never be true. All you have to do is use your own judgement. Those were beliefs and opinions based on perspectives and perceptions for the most part. This is a statement about our environment that has an amplitude of supporting evidence to support its truth (Global Warming).
If you take the video for what it was MEANT to portray however... All he is saying is this:
Better be safe than sorry... - The cost of Global Warming being something that we could act upon to fight against, but neglecting to take any action, by far outweighs the cost of taking action (whether it's true/false, or whether we can/cannot do something about it).
Even if old statements were only just rumors. I don't believe it is a reason or an excuse to be lazy when it comes to "preparation" for something that is not ridiculously implausible. :thumbsup2:
C'mon though! The US already blows billions of dollars into the military for a silly war that might not happen for years unless they want to go to another 3rd world country to steal some oil... I can't see why people would complain about spending a bit of money to fight Global Warming in any way possible to humans if money is what it takes. It's hard to find people that don't have a second motive, and especially among the "higher ups" these days although. Doing something for the greater cause is unfamiliar territory and has been for a while as far as I can tell. :r1:
Enough of my mockery for the government though. It's all the same whichever country or region you talk about. People are usually greedy and don't like change or making sacrifices. I could sell my house to help fight Global Warming if I wanted to, I just don't know how I could fight it. What people don't understand is that it takes more than one person to fight something that big; I am only one person, and who knows if my efforts would even be put to good use or added upon by others? The question really comes down to who actually cares.
~Ace
Last edited:
The earth has been warming since the last ice age ended, with the limited(in relative terms to the earths age) we don't have enough info to know if this merely a normal cycle perhaps sped up by man or all of man's doing.
AceInfinity
Emeritus, Contributor
This is still irrelevant. Back then we didn't have hundreds and thousands of power plants and vehicles polluting the air and damaging the ozone layer. Times have changed, you can't hardly compare 20 years ago to today, let alone maybe 10. Science has enough info to prove that we are a main cause of what has been happening more rapidly than before. Even if we're not 100% the cause, I don't see how a percentage really matters when it comes down to the earth's fate in my opinion. It's just another irrelevant portion of the situation.
Has Sysnative Forums helped you? Please consider donating to help us support the site!