[lit-ideas] Re: global luke-warming
- From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:32:51 -0400
The WSJ editorial page is ultra conservative.
And... ANY "Green" movement is ultra-liberal. Your point?
Let's see, the air is unbreathable in many parts of the world,
Where is this? Name some of these places. Do you know what people USED to
put into our rivers, lakes, ground, air? Did you happen to live in London
in 1900? You want air pollution? The reason that the air is 'polluted' in
some places is because THEY are going through their industrial revolutions
100 years later than we did. We have to give them time to 'develop'. That's
the idea.
pollution concentrations are visible on satellite imaging,
That's because satellite imaging is really good now.
glaciers are melting.
That's what glaciers do.
Conclusion: it's a natural cycle. Even if it is naturally occurring,
wouldn't it be nice to
have cleaner air to breathe
I don't have a problem with our air. It's pretty damned clean. It's
actually the cleanest since we started making stuff.
and oceans that weren't polluted?
Oceans are polluted? What do you mean by 'polluted'?
Denying global warming
I'm not denying climate change. I'm trying to debunk the notion of "global
warming". It's a meaningless term. "Global" is the noughties' "mega". It
precedes everything these days. It's been rendered meaningless. Tell me
what you think "global warming" really means? I want a detailed description
of exactly what is happening with proven cause and effect.
supports the theory of evolution, since evolution is concerned only with
the individual. It doesn't care
about the group. Neither does the WSJ editorial page. Substantitvely,
though, it's the other way around. Scientists are discouraged from
discussing it.
Which scientists are these?
Action needs to be taken now, this decade, and it's not being taken now.
How do you know? I mean, really, how much actual research into 'global
warming' have you personally, Irene, DONE. How much reading of scientific
literature, the stuff that is cited in scholarly journals have you done? Or
do you get your information from Lou Dobbs? Larry King maybe? Anderson
"with all due respect" Cooper?
I think the problem here is that the 'issue' isn't very clearly laid out to
the public because it has to be sexy and cataclysmic in order for anyone to
give a shit. So people like Al Gore devise doomsday theories to show us
that if we don't completely change everything, we're all going to DIE in 50
years. The problem is... most people don't really know how to interpret
statistics and just accept what they are told. "Global Warming" is a very
unfortunate - and completely inaccurate - moniker for something that IS
happening -- climate changes. But climate changes have and will ALWAYS
happen -- yes that's nature, and humans are part of nature. Most people who
stand up and yell 'global warming is happening' don't have a clue even what
they are referring to because it's an empty phrase which doesn't mean
anything. So ask yourself some of these questions;
Do I know what a wet-bulb temperature is?
Do I know what humidity is and how it affects the ability for air to absorb
moisture?
Do I know what VOCs, CFCs and HFCs are and what they do to our atmosphere?
Do I know why we haven't heard about the ozone layer in 10 years?
Do I understand pressure differentials and why wind occurs?
Do I understand what the density of ice is? Do I understand density?
Do I understand the coriolis effect?
Do I have a reason to believe that 'meterologists' can predict weather next
year when they can't even get THIS afternoon's precip right?
The saddest thing about the whole climate change issue is that it's a
political issue. And... as is perfectly clear from Andy's retort, it's also
an emotional issue. Okay, so our environment is changing. So... what are we
going to do about it? There are 6+ billion people on earth.. really not
that many when you do the math and figure out they could all fit inside a
small city (20milesx20miles) if you gathered them together. The Earth is
HUGE. When we say "the earth is being destroyed" what we really mean, in
our selfish way is "it's going to be uncomfortable for HUMANS to inhabit
the earth with our present day habits and attitudes." Again, did you read
that Pianka piece? Any comments? Do we really need to take action on
population explosion? What action? Doesn't it warm your global heart that,
according to the piece you pointed to the other day, population growth is
actually diminishing?
Just a side note: You really need to hold on to just a skosh more faith in
the goodness of humanity. We aren't that nasty really. I saved an orphaned
bunny from certain death on a busy street on Monday night -- it's Easter
doncha know -- and he's doing well on puppy formula fed through a miniature
bottle the Vet suggested. We'll let him go back to his nasty, brutish, and
in his present incarnation, short life, when he gets a little older.
Luckily we have a nice national park about 10 minutes from our house where
he can frolic until he's eaten by a snake -- didn't think I was going to
let it end nicely did ya?
paul
##########
Paul Stone
pas@xxxxxxxx
Kingsville, ON, Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
