Close Topic Options

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? - Page 4

I must disagree with you here. Because there are so many people in China, the per capita statistic may be less, but the overall damage done to the environment is what really matters, isn't it? I saw a documentary that dealt with the very real problem expected to the environment as a result of China's industrialization. The problem was very much tied to the overall number of cars that would be on the road in the near future because of the size of the population and the fact that emissions standards don't really exist.

Man-made Natural Warming Global

It really isn't worth getting into a little contest here, me presenting my sources, you impeaching and denying them. I am not claiming that global warming is not occuring, that humans aren't contributing to it, or that we shouldn't change a lot of things. However, I do claim that they Kyoto treaty is NOT a good thing. I believe it is an attempt to harm the West in a wide variety of ways, and is driven by a neo-Luddite philosophy that all human technology is bad and damaging to humanity and to the global economy.

I do claim that the theories (not facts) of global warming are disputed by credible climatologists. I do claim that there are possible alternate explanations to the possibility of global warming. I claim that the Kyoto treaty is based upon very suspect information - environmentally, economically, and socially.

You will discount any information from any source that doesn't support the global warming and Kyoto treaty agendas. I quickly found information from a variety of sources showing that there are severe economic concerns about the Kyoto treaty. I even found some recent news from Canada showing that the government there is coming to the conclusion that Kyoto is not a good idea for Canada, and could be harmful to their economy. I also found reports from such places as the AFL/CIO (THE major labor union in the US) stating that Kyoto would be an extremely bad thing for the American worker.

But if you are more interested in impeaching the source than countering the evidence, that is certainly your right. There is strong evidence that Kyoto could be very harmful to the world economy, without any strong evidence that Kyoto would make even the slightest difference to "global warming".

Finally, my point about the religious aspects is that while science is seeking answers, those answers aren't always correct, or even helpful.

I am an engineer. I know perfectly well how scientific exploration helps. Global warming enthusiasts are distinctive in that they worship the "science" that supports their paranoia and anti-technology, anti-business points of view, but demonize anyone or anything that gets in their way. Because of these things, we have various leftists in the US claiming that President Bush caused Katrina by failing to push acceptance of the Kyoto treaty through (despite the fact that it requires the Senate to ratify a treaty, and most Democrat Senators stated that they would not support it).

I have watched a lot of environmentalist hysteria going on in the US, and even more in Europe. The consequences of all the environmentalist actions, from my point of view, is always reduction in individual liberty, and strengthening of government controls over business and individuals. That is what I see with Kyoto. It appears to me to be an international cabal designed to assert control over the US, Australian, Canadian, and European economies and cultures in order to enrich those countries that are unwilling or unable to become prosperous on their own. Prosperity doesn't come through pushing other people down. It comes from liberty, hard work, and innovation. It also requires a lot of energy

There are already answers to much of the "global warming" dillema. Nuclear power could easily reduce pollution to an incredible extent. However, the same people (anti-technology, anti-business neo-Luddites) who cry and scream about "global warming" are the ones who stopped the building of nuclear power plants, new and more efficient oil refineries, new hydro electric power plants, and other sorts of clean(er) energy.

Offtopic but, Please don't start to rant about how the US is keeping the rest of the world down. There are all sorts of very complex situations, including cultures that punish innovation and productivity, governments that are horribly corrupt, and nations that think they can tax themselves into prosperity that are at least as damaging as anything that all the corporations in the US could ever be - if they combined their forces! This is a topic that should be discussed elsewhere.

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? History & Civil Business Politics

Funbiker at the moment the US is actually polluting more than China overall, according to stats released by the Independent newspaper in the UK. Regardless, I don't think it is fair to compare any country unless it is on a per capita basis. That goes for anything, whether it is sporting achievements etc, but of course there will be other political factors.

Small countries like mine who pollute quite a lot would be seen as extremely green if you measure our overall pollution. But that's not fair on countries with a larger population that make more of an effort to reduce their greenhouse emissions.

Nighthawk I am not trying to bring the US down. Those were the only stats I came across to give you a comparison because you asserted developing countries were far worse polluters.

Furthermore I'm a journalist not a columnist. I'm very competent at distinguishing solid fact from agenda driven fiction. I do not look for facts to support my personal view. I have looked at both sides of this argument and formed an opinion. I am not going to comb the web to try and find a view point or report to suit my opinion. When I look at information presented to me I look at how reputable, independent and various other factors to ascertain its credibility.

I can't quite understand why you think people who care about the environment are anti-technology. I believe technology is crucial to reducing emissions and looking after our environment. It's the only way forward.

I 100 per cent agree with you about nuclear power. It must be used more, that would make a huge difference. The amount of risk of a nuclear catastrophe is so minimal compared to the benefits. The problem I have with the green movement is they tend to be against nuclear power for stupid reasons. I also think certain governments around the world who use nuclear energy shouldn't be opposed to other countries developing that technology.

This would all help reduce greenhouse emissions and, in my opinion, global warming. But so would developing motor vehicles that run of greener fuel. I think we need to wean our reliance of fossil fuels.

Page 4 Man-made Natural Warming Global

My point is that the environmentalist left is generally anti-technology, claiming essentially that all human technology is bad. Obviously not all those who support the Kyoto treaty are anti-technology, but those who are making the most noise about it certainly seem to be, at least from my point of view.

I am currently involved in development of a hybrid transmission. From what I have learned about our system, as well as all the others that are out there, hybrid technology is a complete waste of time. None of the hybrid technology will every pay for itself, either economically or environmentally. However, the political situation requires that all of us be working on it.

Electric cars, backed up by nuclear power, or fuel cells are the only currently known technologies that are really valid alternatives. But neither of those technologies are anywhere near being useful yet.

Finally, it is not only the US and Australia that recognize that the Kyoto treaty is not a good thing. Britain, which was a strong supporter of the treaty, is coming to see that it is damaging.

https://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus....R20051102c.html
Britain Shifting Toward US View of Climate Change

Man-made Natural Warming Global

Well I think the sort of work you are doing, exploring alternative sources is very good for the environment. Maybe hybrid technology isn't the way to go, but there has to be a better way than refined oil. I'm all for technology, I believe it is so important and environmentalists who are against this ought to wake up to themselves.

I have to agree on what Senator Campbell is saying. China and India should not be given special expemtions. This whole treaty I'm sure will go through a reform process. Kyoto isn't the answer alon though. It's important to realise that is just one measure. I think it has merit, but as you've pointed out there has to be parity in its application.

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?

NEW SIGNS OF A WORLD IN PERIL

Rising temperatures trigger a runaway melt of Greenland's ice shet, raising sea levels and drowning Pacific islands and cities from New York to Tokyo.
Ref. https://www.stuff.co.nz/hlc/1,,93498~3491659a10~,00.html

Global Warming Natural Man-made - Page 4

That is a very strong statement to make: "...the biggest danger facing the world is not terrorism or bird flu, but global warming". Do we have any researchers who have studied this to say if this is true: is global warming such an imminent threat that it a bigger danger? I would like a researched answer rather than an opinionated answer.

CLINTON WORRIED BY CLIMATE THREAT

Former United States president Bill Clinton has warned a well-heeled audience that the biggest danger facing the world is not terrorism or bird flu, but global warming.
Ref. https://www.stuff.co.nz/hlc/1,,93498~3583739a10~,00.html

Global Warming Natural Man-made Politics Business Civil & History - Page 4

In my opinion:

I enjoyed both Knighthawk's and Farseer's posts. Knighthawk you have a keen BS detector. The earth is getting warmer though. 10,000 years ago we were in a ice age and now we're not. From what I have read the Earth's temperature goes up and down over the eons. Once Anarctica was covered with a tropical forest. In my opinion mankind is having a very small effect on global temperature.

One thing I wanted to mention is the Urban Heat Island. I understand that a lot of temperature readings come from the local airport which is surrounded by miles of heat absorbing concrete and asphalt. The data of increased temperatures might be a local phenomena.