Close Topic Options

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? - Page 13

This is not true. Volcanoes do not contribute more CO2 than humans. This is a lie being pedaled by pro-business lobby groups. In an earlier post I spoke of another massive eruption of Mt Pinatubo in 1991.

The big Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991 spewed about 30 million tonnes of CO2 into the air. That's only about 0.5% of how much humans chug out each year - 7,700 million tons. This completely dismisses the claim that volcanoes do more greenhouse damage than we do.

Nighthawk, why do you think economists want to destroy the world? Economists are just advisers. They predict the future of the economy to advise business, governments and the wider public. They have no interest in creating a doom and gloom scenario. Business leaders do have a lot of ground knowledge. But they also have an agenda. It is called profit. There is nothing wrong with this, but it will always affect their line of thinking. While not all business leaders are purely driven by profit at the expense of the environment, a lot are. So you must take their opinions in context, as you do with economists.

What the economists I have noted are saying is that we can fix the climate change problem and that it won't destroy the economy. This is a positive message. I"m certain there are also economists who will argue otherwise, but you have to look at the agenda of people who make claims. The economists I have spoken with have no agenda concerning climate change. They are either employed by the government or for accounting firms, who provide regular advise to big business.

Some companies of note, including HSBC, are taking positive steps to prepare for climate change. I think this trend will grow in a responsible and manageable manner.

There are proposals of more regulation. It is impossible to tackle any global problem without a level of regulation or collaboration. But the regulations that have been applied so far, especially with the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, have actually benefited business.

Man-made Natural Warming Global

I won't place any quotes out because from the reading of the last 12 pages it appears that discussion has covered a good amount of the debate and counter debate except for the challenge of termite flatulence. However, there appears to be elements missing in the dialogue. To begin with, physical science is factual and is proven and cannot be simply dismissed as conjecture because doing so mutes and discredits any meaningful debate on the subject. It has been widely understood through historical and scientific evidence that the earth has gone through climatic changes as wells as magnetic changes. Consequently, there are many theories that have been placed forward regarding climatologically changes on the planet ranging from sun spot activities, elliptical variations to natural cycles of heating and cooling and as previously mentioned there have been observed influences of volcanism and its effects on short-term meteorological patterns.

Global warming is seemly relatively new to popular media culture but there is nothing new to scientific communities and to further the debate we are still not sure as to the effect of global dimming in concealing the effects of global warming in the industrial age. What is evident is that the earth is going through a heating trend and I believe that the debate that surrounds this subject is, to what extent has/does human activity add to the overall influence of this occurrence. This is essentially what has pitted the interests of business against that of science. There are some who believe that the resultant changes will go from arithmetic to geometric when a critical point has been breached and I am one of them.

I believe that the most prominent, significant and influential part of the equation has been ignored for the most part by the popular press and that is the authority of the ocean on the climatic systems on the planet. The storage of latent heat and the thermal conductivity of water mixed through global currents is what I believe will be the determining factor. Sea surface temperatures have risen and while it may seem small, consider the volume in relation to the increase and it becomes noteworthy. The reduction in tropical rainforests and the lack of vegetation to retain water have determined that there has been more precipitation in the Hadley Cell, Ferrell Cell and the Polar Cells and as water descends it heats by friction hence, the basic principles of physical science that has been verified by an increase of fresh water in the Arctic Ocean from glacial melt and thus adding more water into the equation.


The aforementioned does not take place in a vacuum but is essentially the backdrop to globalization and what that means in the near future is that there is going to be approximately another 500 to 600 hundred million people in Asia and Europe that will be striving toward the attainment of the same quality of life in that has been enjoyed by Westerns societies which has also incidentally been identified as being the primary human contributor to global temperature increase. Again, these realities have set business interests in opposition the what is now being evidenced on the planet to the extent of where the U.S. government has tried to muzzle one of it's most respected scientist NASA's Dr. James Hansen. Perhaps the question should not be is global warming occurring but rather should we espouse on the personal and political front the present Cornucpian model or the Malthusian model of sustainability?

Edited: Charles R on 2nd Jan, 2007 - 11:07pm

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

You are right. However, you have not addressed the point that science is filled with theories, and that the ones regarding global climatic change are just that theories, not proven fact. And, most of them are dealing with computer models, and scientists know only a few of the almost infinite variables dealing with climatic conditions.

Science tries to deal with facts. But those facts must change all the time, since scientific theories change all the time.

Please explain what these two models are. Also, how many other models of behavior are there? Which ones are more likely to require massive governmental regulation to enact? Which ones are more likely to be market driven?

Page 13 Man-made Natural Warming Global

Again, I will reiterate that physical science is factual and is proven and cannot be simply dismissed as conjecture because doing so mutes and discredits any meaningful debate on the subject. Science is filled with theories and that is a part of the process that incorporates and builds on adjunctive data and research. An apology in 2000 to Galileo Galilei's for his affirmation (1610) of Nicolaus Copernicus" theory of 1497 illustrates the example but changes no fact. Evidence provided by physical science of global climate change in the past is widely accepted as knowledge.

On the contrary, computer models that have been utilized in accessing climatic models are complex primarily because the vast number of variables that is placed into the calculations, scenarios and outcome. The Japanese have distinguished themselves as having the largest and most complex computer systems and not only can they seek to predict future climate models they also function to propose possible solutions to decrease and or to diminish the effects of change.

You are going to have to read about it however; in brief the Cornucpian model (the horn of plenty) see that resources and growth are infinite and I believe this is the market driven model. The Malthusian model sees a finite ability to sustain life within a specific quality of life as related to the carrying capacity.

Notwithstanding the address and returning to the adjunctive progression of the debate regarding global climate change, I believe it going be more about our readiness to reflect and address regarding the ability of the earth to sustain the levels of consumerism that have been established as the norm in Western societies.

Edited: Charles R on 3rd Jan, 2007 - 3:55am

Man-made Natural Warming Global

The European Emissions Trading Scheme, the largest carbon market in the world, uses a combination of governmental regulation and market forces. So far, due to a rather generous supply of carbon allowances, which has exceeded emissions in all sectors except energy production, companies have been able to trade their emissions with minimal harm to their bottom line. There is talk about Governments auctioning allowances instead of supplying them for free. This would generate proceeds which could be poured back into other environmental initiatives.

At the end of the day market forces will determine who are the winners and losers. This is a form of regulation that allows the private sector to find a meaningful balance. In 2005, 322 million tonnes of CO2 was traded in the EU ETS with a value of $19.5 billion. Across the world, carbon trading has a value of $22 billion.

Schemes like this can hurt smaller companies more, but by the same token they offer opportunities for new sectors in technology and services to grow.

I think what you have said rings a bell with me. I have been saying all along in this discussion that if we continue to live to excess, as what is acceptable in the West today, than there is no hope. There needs to be redress. So much energy is wasted on a daily basis. We are kidding ourselves if we think developing countries won't strive for the lifestyles that we enjoy.

Nations with a very high standard of living like Australia are now suffering due to climate change. Water supplies across the land are simply drying out. Crops and cattle are struggling under extreme drought conditions. We cannot continue to live like this. This level of growth simply cannot be sustained with the resources available. Oil will dry up. It's not renewable and being consumed at higher levels as nations grow.

There is no doubt climate change is occurring. Scientific models show it is occurring at an accelerated rate since the industrial age began. We can have this debate about human contribution until it is too late. One day we might arrive at some sort of consensus. But there is no excuse for not cleaning up our act now and helping developing nations clean up theirs.

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?

Well said Arvhvic, I believe that the younger generations have more of an active conscience that the so called elders of society and education is the key in having people examine their choices in the context of global citizenship as it relates to the climate that ties us together. The old saying of, "if you want to change the world start with the square foot beneath you" is extremely applicable in this circumstance. There is not going to be any magic bullet or pill that is going to be the savior here, just old fashioned hard work and sacrifice.

Edited: Charles R on 3rd Jan, 2007 - 9:36pm

Global Warming Natural Man-made - Page 13

Something I am not understanding is the continual desire to equate helping the environment as market driven. Market driven theories imply that the market is helped by a particular train of thought an action. Those fighting against environmentalism are the people who stand to lose the most if it wins out. Big industry and oil companies are the ones funding the "science" behind anti-environmentalism, and its well documented.

Why on earth are people taking the side of the people who make the most money and pollute the most? Doesn't it seem more likely that the people who would lose the most would growl the loudest? Instead, we have these wild conspiracy theories that environmentalist are in some way trying to take down the world by imposing these tough economical policies using the environmental issue as a scam. That doesn't even make sense. The total cost to clean up our environment is not large enough to make that kind of impact. Add to that, if you are changing so much, the money simply goes to another company to make the new stuff and the economy has the opportunity to grow as a result, creating more jobs and more spendable income for the country.

Further, there is not a single good argument against implementing environmental protections and safe guards. There is little negative effect, and huge benefit. Such things like environmentally friendly electricity are not only better for the economy, its cheaper. The midwest has already started using more wind mill driven grids and my electric bill has since gone down. As that show benefit for the environment and my pocket book, I would like to hear the argument against it. With cleaner and cheaper electricity, that paves the way for more electric and hybrid cars. If the electricity being made is from wind mill farms, then the electric and hybrid car actually makes sense.

Come to think of it, I can't figure out one good reason why the average person would be against this.

Global Warming Natural Man-made Politics Business Civil & History - Page 13

LAWMAKERS HEAR OF INTERFERENCE IN GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE

Federal scientists have been pressured by the White House to play down global warming, advocacy groups testified Tuesday at the Democrats' first investigative hearing since taking control of Congress.
REf. https://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/30/con...e.ap/index.html