DEBATE ON GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Fshhead , 6:52 AM GMT on May 10, 2006

This is my continuing blog on global warming. If you are new visitor, please look at last couple of blog entrys also on global warming!!!!










"There are so many arguments proving & disputing global warming that people can't seem to agree completly on it. But for all the preperations that we make for hurricanes & other disasters, what do we have to lose if we prepare for global warming as if the worst might come true?
The answer is pure common sense. We should try to eliminate the variables that cause global warming instead of just arguing about it. It's like a hurricane- if we prepare for the worst, it can only save lives & money. If it does not come, no one will have been hurt & we may even have a healthier Earth."

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Log In or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 1111 - 1061

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32Blog Index

1111. snowboy
11:41 PM GMT on December 13, 2006
The aim of course SHOULD be to skew the free market, something that I realize you Americans are allergic to. But the free market does nothing but maximize profits at the expense of the natural environment, which is why we have a problem. Governments have powers which if used judiciously can be used to correct this problem.

Your government should tax all fossil fuels being used in the USA, and put the monies coming from such a tax into R+D for a variety of initiatives to counteract global warming such as:
- alternative energy in particular solar;
- alternative fuels such as biodiesel;
- taking marginal farm lands out of production and planting trees;
- conservation measures;
- stringent new fuel efficiciency requirements for cars, and financial supports for the Big 3 to help them get there..

You get the idea. America seems stuck looking backwards at a time that is long gone. You need to look forward, and to wean yourselves off of fuel coming from the Middle East..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1110. Oreodog
2:00 PM CST on December 12, 2006
But the free market is neither free nor perfect. And it too is not the best we have. The compelling need is the potential benefit of a) minimizing further damage and/or b) creating a better environment and industries that spin around that. See, the status quo thinking is myopic. "We've always done it this way so we have to keep doing it that way." That makes no sense -- it is an entirely circular justification -- in fact, that is the true recursive argument. Mine does not rely on previous subsidies to butress its existence or provide the formula for success -- rather, that point was to show that money certainly is available -- there's your trillions, HAARP.

Again, going to the moon was a fool's venture and a folly and a waste of taxpayers money. Thank God we did it. There was no national need.

That is the need -- foresight. Foresight involves risk, involves mistakes, but it is not the creation of a police state in which everything is fettered except the police powers and the "free market" -- a market in which no movement takes place until a shovel hits you upside the head. You must incentivize the flow of capital to new areas -- hell, we do it with the oil companies -- and that ain't nothing new. We subsidize Israel. That ain't new. Let's subsidize something new that might truly make the world a better place.

Regulation absolutely will change it, Zap. Absolutely.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1109. Zaphod
5:31 PM GMT on December 12, 2006
Odog, you can't justify another subsidy using a recursive argument based on previous subsidies -- the better point would be to remove the subsidies altogether. All taxes, subsidies, and regulations skew the free market, for better or worse. The goal should be to err on the side of minimalism on all three, and to remove more subsidies than are newly incurred.

Unless there is a compelling NEED for a nationally sponsored program that cannot be served at the state, local, and personal level it should not be served at the national level. A national program invariably grows a bureauracy that serves special interests, and then cannot efficiently serve the need for which it was designed. Moon shots and nuclear fusion require a national-scale investment. Hybrid technology, multi-fuel vehicles, and solar dev'p does not. There are options in the market already -- they are merely unpopular, and regulation cannot change that!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1108. ricderr
5:05 PM GMT on December 12, 2006
haarp....i wish i could remember where i read it..but..someone claimed that with global warming...we'ld also get worse winter weather....i'm an idiot..so i was too confused to udnerstand
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1107. HAARP
4:54 PM GMT on December 12, 2006
oredog who is going to fund the trillions of incentives we will need?

and all this evidence you claim is circumstantial...

there is no hard evidence... just a collection of data that would be picked apart by even a drunk first year law student...is ted kennedy available?

people are coming around because polititions are using this as a way to get votes and the media as always is overhyping it to the point where you cannot go anywhere without someone talking about it...

every warm day now is caused by global warming oh my please ...

why doesnt anyone say anything about the record cold we just went through here in chicago last week?...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1106. ricderr
4:50 PM GMT on December 12, 2006
Do I do everything I can to reduce my footprint? No, but I'm starting. I only recently (in the last few years) accepted as fact that the earth is warming and that man's activities are causing an abnormally large portion of the change

in the last few years..and you're only starting....makes me believe..that most people..truly don't believe..or don't care..so...why should i listen to them?.....it's all about credibility...

not to mention..your opening statement is not factual
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1105. Oreodog
10:46 AM CST on December 12, 2006
It's headin that way Zap, but it takes time -- maybe too much time. Look, if we can artificially prop up farmers for years by paying them not to grow crops, or refine sugar, or etc., we can federally incentivize industry to move to cleanliness. All it takes is the will to change. A challenge. The 21st century's moon mission (an absurdly costly but ultimately cost-effective venture).

And, by the way, good to see you again.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1104. Zaphod
4:32 PM GMT on December 12, 2006
If everybody who said they were convinced that GW was real, and believed that man caused it, made their next car a hybrid there would be more than 1% of them on the road.....

We don't need massive fed investments and heavy regulation to effect change, but consumers voting with their pocketbook. If it's not important enough for "true believers" to change their lifestyles, why should the agnostics?

If even 10% of the buying populace bought alt fuel cars, or 1% installed a form of alt energy for their homes, or selected a domicile to minimize vehicular transportation needs, the corporate incentive would dwarf anything the gov't could strive to create, and of course mishandle.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1103. Oreodog
10:40 AM CST on December 12, 2006
And Rand -- love ya too, bro.

And for you capitalists out there (like me), there will be beaucoup bucks to be made in the new economies of conservation, cleaning up and being smart.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1102. Oreodog
10:32 AM CST on December 12, 2006
I disagree on the provability aspect HAARP. Not provable beyond a shadow of a doubt, but the list of evidence keep getting longer, and we are learning daily how to construct the ecological equivalent of a DNA test to figure it out.

In the 1920's, in cases without an eyewitness, wrongful murder convictions happened frequently. With the advent of DNA and other testing mechanisms, the accuracy of accusations and convictions has soared. Still some errors, but much better. What I find fascinating is that as time and accuracy and theories evolve, our ability to predict climate and weather has improved drastically (still with abberations -- see 2006 hurricane season). But still it has improved. And as it has improved, the evidence and weight of the conclusions pointing to man's footprint being a causal factor has grown. Like I said, it's not a slam dunk, but we cannot make the mistake of doing nothing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1100. HAARP
4:23 PM GMT on December 12, 2006
oreodog... nice post but i could say this too...

but is largely populated with scientific think tank folks who are paid by the very companies that have the most to GAIN from a structural shift in our economy or attitude toward the subject -- i.e., their opinions and conclusions are highly suspect and would likely not, for example, stand up in a court of law...

yall know i think we should change our habits and conserve our resources... but not on a theory which is unprovable... we need to focus on bigger issues we have in this world... If our human race is going to burn up and die off because our planet warms up it will not be because of our actions... it is natural selection and we will die off of something...be it a meteor/super volcano/ warming...etc...

there is no stopping these things so why would puting these crazy fears into people change their habits... it wont.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1099. Oreodog
9:52 AM CST on December 12, 2006
Fish - you and I are on the exact same page. As to all the nattering nabobs of "it's a natural cycle" -- no it's not -- it is off the charts.

Do I do everything I can to reduce my footprint? No, but I'm starting. I only recently (in the last few years) accepted as fact that the earth is warming and that man's activities are causing an abnormally large portion of the change. Will a drastic change in our activities solve everything -- make it stop? Unlikely. But will it make a difference? Most likely. It's rather like the starfish story. You might not save them all, but you will save some.

There are four schools on this issue. One school acknowledges the changes that are occurring and is convinced that man's activities are a major contributing factor. This school has a long list of distinguished scholars and academics with genuine research to back them up. The second school acknowledges the changes that are occurring but is unsure of whether man's activities meaningfully contribute to the impact. This school too is supported by a long list of academics and scholars. The third school acknowledges the changes that are occurring but dismisses man's activities as irrelevant and believes they have no impact on the changes. This school has a couple of scholars and academics, but is largely populated with corporate think tank folks who are paid by the very companies that have the most to lose from a structural shift in our economy or attitude toward the subject -- i.e., their opinions and conclusions are highly suspect and would likely not, for example, stand up in a court of law. The fourth school claims that all this is just hype and there really isn't a fundamental change occurring in the world's climate. This school is virtually entirely populated by hacks and kooks.

So, looking at the range of options, I do not understand how we can do anything but take aggressive action to curb our ecological and environmental footprint. Because there is the chance -- and a substantial chance at that, that we are causing some of this impact, we have to act. My analogy for this is the bundle of clothes in the road. As I am driving, I see a bundle of clothes in the road. There may or may not be a person under those clothes. Can't tell. It might even be unlikely that there is a person under the clothes bundle. I know that if there is no person, I can drive over the clothes with no ill effects. There is a small chance that if I steer to avoid the bundle, something might happen to my car, but that is extremely unlikely (in other words, I have an unobstructed path to take to avoid the clothes). Avoiding the clothes bundle, however, will cost me a bit more and delay my trip. Do I run over the bundle? Of course not. You, we, must take the actions necessary just in case it is indeed us that is causing some of this.

Just an idiot's thoughts.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1098. ricderr
3:51 PM GMT on December 12, 2006
but rand...we both know....no one will listen..so i'm still an idiot..for even trying
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1096. ricderr
3:24 PM GMT on December 12, 2006
ok fish...dropping in a little article about methane and animals....now..you want to do more than talk...do you own an electric car?...alternative fueld vehicle..do you avail yourself of mass transit and are you a vegetairian and also look to use non animal based products? if not..then you're not spouting your support for global warming..you're spouting against oil..funny...although i don't feel global warming is a man made event if it is a long term event but i can say yes to the above..you want to take a stand..do it...but live it too is all i ask

methane in the atmosphere breaks down within a decade. This suggests that reducing methane emissions will have a more immediate impact on global warming (Adam, 2000). CO2 had increased by 30% in the last 200 years, whilst methane has doubled in that time period.

"Artificial" methane emissions come from various sources, such as power stations, coal mining, but nearly 50% of methane comes from agriculture. Rice agriculture is a contributor, but anywhere from 20% to 60% of 'man-made' emissions originate from livestock (Adam, 2000; Major, 2000).



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1095. HAARP
2:44 PM GMT on December 12, 2006
Posted By: Fshhead at 7:02 AM GMT on December 12, 2006.
Dude forget the cows. Work on something that is so outdated. We are in a new millenium using last millenium technology



guess we might as well throw out electricity,running water, and toilets too huh

as far as the clinton thing ... open your eyes that the only reason they are trumpeting their global warming horns is for political gain and if you support them than thats your own deal...

where was clinton when he was in office for 8 years?!?! and al gore ?!?!?!

you didnt see my point about that truck getting 6 mpg so it is nothing more than a cheap stunt by ford and clinton... ford didnt even mention they got that technology from toyota... and clinton forgot to mention the 4 suvs following him around too... and hillarys excalade esv ...

all I am saying is this political garbage has leaked into what could have been a valid debate about global warming...

hey man its your blog so whatever ... but you wont sway any minds bringing up the clintons ... esp when they talk out of both sides of there mouth... like all polititions
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1094. Lovethetropics
5:40 AM AST on December 12, 2006
Good morning Fshhead!! Wake up, it's Tuesday!
Make it a great day!!!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1087. Fshhead
8:02 AM GMT on December 12, 2006
al gor hypercane????
lol
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
1083. Fshhead
7:52 AM GMT on December 12, 2006
k now think the last 2 years atlantic season & pacific seasons NOT included in that data!!
What do you think the percentages would be then????? STAGGERING!!!!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
1074. Fshhead
7:00 AM GMT on December 12, 2006
Dude forget the cows. Work on something that is so outdated. We are in a new millenium using last millenium technology
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
1070. Fshhead
6:57 AM GMT on December 12, 2006
Whats the matter Haarp ??? Did I strike a nerve with the Clinton's LOL
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
1069. Fshhead
6:57 AM GMT on December 12, 2006
well look who it is....
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
1066. redgear
6:42 AM GMT on December 12, 2006
All i have to do is look out my backyard and I see glaciers that have receded up to a quarter mile in the last two decades,its happening fast, its inescapable that we have contributed to this.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1065. Trouper415
6:19 AM GMT on December 12, 2006
Great articles and debates here. Good to see you back Snowbow and great work Fshhead and all.

Peace
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
1064. HAARP
5:57 AM GMT on December 12, 2006
Posted By: snowboy at 9:20 PM GMT on December 11, 2006.
More grim tidings from the Arctic, where there are real world changes of huge significance going on while the doubters (like those posting here recently) do their best to pretend or convince themselves that nothing is happening.


dont start labeling people... well at least not me... i post both sides in here... "doubters" is a label ... why not "realists" ...

like i always have said... global warming is happening...no doubt... but its a giant leap to say we are causing it or that we can stop it.

OH and nice piece of political garbage with the clinton hybrid link... why dont they post what kinda gas mileage that thing gets with its 5000# of armour... and how often he drives it...what does hilary drive? oh and how much carbon does his 16 cars in his front yard emmit?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1063. snowboy
4:41 AM GMT on December 12, 2006
Just to point out a misimpression in an earlier post, cattle are not big C02 producers (though like all animals, humans included, they breath out CO2). It is the raising of cattle, and the unsustainable practices that often accompany cattle ranching, that generates a good bit of CO2.

Cattle worldwide are also huge methane producers (due to the way their digestive systems work), and methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas. It is true that if we all ate a bit less beef, that there would be a benefit in terms of reducing global warming..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1062. Fshhead
3:46 AM GMT on December 12, 2006
Link
Heres an interesting video. Bill Clinton got a hybrid & it talks about future plans for Ford motor company. It is a video & worth watching!!!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
1061. Fshhead
3:45 AM GMT on December 12, 2006
lol just responding to the blind-side attacks earlier lol
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 1111 - 1061

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Fshhead's WunderBlog

About Fshhead

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
73 °F
Mostly Cloudy

Fshhead's Recent Photos

Hurricane Andrew August 24, 1992
Hurricane Andrew August 24, 1992
Hurricane Andrew August 24, 1992
Hurricane Andrew August 24, 1992