posted on July 17, 2001 12:38:11 PM
I was watching CNN report that the small island of Tarawa, Kiribati is sinking beneath the waves of the Pacific Ocean. Not because the island itself is sinking, but because of Global Warming. When High Tide comes about, croplands are being inundated with salt water and residents have been forced to evacuate.
In response to this crisis, Pat Robertson announced that this Sunday he will continue to denounce the concept of Global Warming to reassure Americans that this is simply "bad science gone amok" and that the island is not really in trouble at all!
CNN likes to insert these little tidbits and then never have a link for the articles. I will keep trying to see if they do provide a story that you can read and I will post the links as I find them.
Meanwhile, in a much-related story, our beloved President continues to rollback Clinton efforts to halt Global Warming in order to line the pockets of large corporations at everybody's expense (see link below).
Congress also announced plans today to pass legislation that would require the automakers to produce automobiles with double the current mileage by the year 2017. Since this very same legislation got passed in the late 1970's, early 1980's, mid1980's, late 1980's, early 1990's, mid-1990's, and each time as the deadline for the automobile companies approached, Congress killed the legislation to let them off the hook. Congress now feels that you and I are too stupid and will fall for this again. Only this time, they moved the deadline out a long ways to the year 2017!
Question: is our government at war with us? Just what the hell is their problem?
posted on July 17, 2001 02:34:53 PMThe tiny nation of Kiribati said it was already experiencing coastal erosion, droughts and severe storms as sea levels rose. CNN
Wow, all I can say is we are damn lucky that the rising sea level problem is just localized to a Kirabati. Yes, Bush needs to sign that Kyoto agreement instantly. I'm not sure if the tide is coming in here in Biloxi or it's the beginning of the end.
posted on July 17, 2001 06:55:24 PM" I'm not sure if the tide is coming in here in Biloxi or it's the beginning of the end." uaru
Actually, I recall last year hearing in the news about the Florida Keys are starting to go missing. Of course, we'll have to wait another ten years or so before we can all agree that the world's oceans are rising. You know, just because the polar ice caps have been melting at a tremendous rate doesn't mean that the water released is actually going anywhere!
posted on July 18, 2001 08:24:55 AM
Borillar: roofguy -- what'cha been toking??
I'm just observing the new religion, Environmentalism. By media reports, it has taken hold in Europe, but maybe that says more about the reporters than it does about Europe. My European correspondents report that the organizations cited in news reports that "Europeans horrified that Bush dumped Kyoto", those organizations are the local equivalent of Ralph Nader. That it's deceptive to cite such reaction as if they really spoke for Europeans overall.
The belief that temperatures and sea levels are rising is science. It's been going on for on the order of 10,000 years now, and can be observed on any coastline.
The belief that humans have anything to do with that is a religious belief, very much in the same category as believing that God punishes ungodly leadership by sending plagues.
posted on July 18, 2001 08:37:11 AM
I wouldn't knock environmentalism *too* much. If not for the folks who concerned themselves with it we'd all have the lungs of veteran coal miners by the time we were 20 years old.
posted on July 18, 2001 09:19:56 AM
Personally I think the earth has cycles that man isn't going to change. We accept some of these cycles because they are frequent enough that we understand them and don't get excited about them. I don't think there are many that run around in a panic and start gluing leaves back on the trees in the fall.
I'm all for a cleaner environment, but what I think should be the key element doesn't seem to be part of the proposal. Population control.
posted on July 18, 2001 09:25:01 AM
There have been tremendous climate swings within recent years and even significant change within recorded history.
I am sitting on a hill that is the ridge of debris left when a huge glacier reached it's southern most advance in Michigan. It was here when there were humans alive to see it.
before the civil war I have seen documentation that citrus fruit was grown along the banks of the Mississippi as far North as Tennesee. Now citrus is at risk above central Florida.
The Indian civilizations that existed in the South West United States before the coming of Europeans collapsed from a switch to a drier climate.
We are in a warming phase and may accelerate it but the idea that we may reverse it is doubious. It would take engineering on a scale never seen globally and in orbit to do that.
posted on July 18, 2001 10:21:11 AMI wouldn't trust anyone to control the population.
I can understand that. I'm not sure I want to give that 'control' to someone either. I've made my own contribution, I plan on just one child.
Either man controls his population or nature will. That's easy for me to accept, but for someone living in a third world country dependant on their children to take care of them in their old age it isn't.
posted on July 18, 2001 11:52:49 AM
Environmentalism as a religion? If you say that because we end up having to take that on faith, you are right to a partial degree. I say partial, because faith is the lazy choice. You do not have to accept the facts based upon faith beause you too can go to college and get your degree in environmental sciences and do the field work and collect the facts for yourself. That is where it differs with a real religion.
posted on July 18, 2001 03:02:21 PM
"Humans are causing global warming, which in turn causes glaciers and icecaps to melt, raising sea levels. If the government doesn't take action to stop the people causing this, it will get worse."
I don't doubt that some schools teach this as science rather than religion. Such schools are guilty of the same mixing of science and religion as schools which teach creationism.
posted on July 18, 2001 03:45:07 PM
So what you are saying is that we should not be teaching any science in classrooms unless the kids are madde to go get their degree in that field of science and do the field work and uncover the facts for themselves first?
posted on July 18, 2001 04:36:33 PM
You're not answering the question, roofguy.
I asked because your posts usually make sense, even if I may not agree with them. But it sounds like to me that you are saying that if a person is too lazy to go get a degree in a field of science and go do the fieldwork and collect the facts for themselves, that you can simply write the information off as faith-based reasoning. I can't see any other way to interpret that. Am I wrong?
posted on July 18, 2001 04:49:40 PM
There is no scientific evidence that humans have caused global warming. None.
People who believe that humans, bad humans, have done so, are accepting that on faith. That'a a religious belief. When they try to get the government to crush those bad people, they're requesting a theocracy.
posted on July 18, 2001 05:24:18 PM"There is no scientific evidence that humans have caused global warming. None."
None?
Your contention is that there is no evidence that humans (or their byproducts; such as cars, freon, etc.) have caused or are causing a rapid accelleration of the planet's heating.
That's news to me. If true, I'll change my view of science and scientists.
As far as global warming goes, we are in a slight warming trend. But overall, we have been in a temperature decline towards another ice age for several thousand years. All of a sudden, the planet's climate takes a U-turn -- but only after the Industial age is well underway. And you say that scientists are not basing any of their conclusions as to the cause (us) of this abnormal warming trend upon any facts or science? That they are just spewing out hot air and its all alarmist nonsense?
posted on July 18, 2001 09:50:00 PM
Well, I'm not going to be the one who's going to ask roofguy for proof that there is no proof. Instead, I'm trying to mull over why scientists -- many of them Nobel Prize winners, would want to ruin their reputations and lifelong careers by stating something as scientific fact when there are no facts whatsoever to support it, just like Christian "scientists" and creationists do. It boggles the mind to wonder why hundreds of prominent scientists would be so willing to throw away their careers in such a scandalous manner. I can only wonder what their motive really is. Does anybody know?
posted on July 18, 2001 10:55:25 PMBut overall, we have been in a temperature decline towards another ice age for several thousand years.
Well Borillar, there is no proof of that either.
The evidence of long term warming is very clear. Over the past 10,000-20,000 years we have warmed tremendously, and the ice caps have shrunk. The American West has become much drier. The oceans have gained some few hundred feet.
After that well supported observation, it gets fuzzy.
We have few records of climate until about 150 years ago, but what we have does not support your claim of persistently declining temperatures. Rather, it supports a claim that as yet unpredictable cycles dominate climate much like they dominate weather. That sometimes it gets colder, and sometimes it gets warmer, for decades, or centuries as well as an odd year here and there, maybe caused by a volcanic eruption.
We have no actual temperature records at all until the last half of the 19th century, and even then they were erratic until after WWII. Worse, with respect to the goal at hand, until about 25 years ago, the only real ongoing records of temperature were recorded in or around cities, and the results were tainted by local energy consumption and heat retention by structures. The actual precise results of the past 25 years do not show conclusive evidence of warming at all, let alone evidence of human caused warming.
Scientists are often also religious. Many believe in God. Some even believe in Creationsim. Others believe in human caused global warming.
I doubt that very many scientists believe in both Creationism and human caused global warming, these seem incompatible religious beliefs.
posted on July 19, 2001 08:27:06 AM"BTW, what does freon have to do with global warming?"
Freon is a HydoFluroCarbon (HCF) and it eats Ozone. Ozone delpetion is thought to be the cause of increaded solar radiation to the earth's surface. Increased solar radiation supposedly raises the temperatures and melts the polar ice caps. Melting ice caps are supposed to be the reason why islands are going under from the rising tides. That is why HCFs are banned in most countries in the world.
posted on July 19, 2001 08:46:38 AM"But overall, we have been in a temperature decline towards another ice age for several thousand years."
"Well Borillar, there is no proof of that either."
On this, I have to disagree with you. These is an awful lot of evidence from a large variety of courses. Paleoclimatologists around the world have been accurately mapping the history of the world's climate for decades.
I saw one program on it last year on the History Channel. it was not about global warming at all. It was just the fascinating new things that they have discovered. The most fascinating thing for me (and them too) was that there are cycles within bigger cycles within bigger cycles of climate temperatures. There are cycles that last decades, cycles that last centuries, cycles that last millliniums, etc. The question is to find the biggest cycle and answer the ultimate quetion -- up or down?
What was also most fascinating was how they collected their data. Through the use of, say, ancient dead trees, they have pieced together a climate timeline that extends back for thousands of years. True, one tree does not a world weather make, but examining thousands of these trees around the world by many researchers has helped to put together a pretty clear picture. And it is not just dead trees alone. There werer lots of other verifiable ways. No fuzzy science here, everything was well-grounded as geology or math is.
At any rate, we are in an overall temperature decline. For instance, back in the early 1500's, that time is generally referred to as a mini-ice age. That is because temperatures dipped so low for so long that it should have started another ice age. What kept it from happening was a warming of the atmosphere through increased carbonization. That carbonization is greatly attributed to the fact that all of Europe was buring mountains of coal to keep warm. That was the first indication that what humans do should affect the weather and climate.
Of course, that's all easy to write off. The simple explantion is that they are just making all of this up for reasons yet to be suggested here in this forum. Since so many posters here have such a clear insight into the REAL truth of the case, the truth that thousands of scientists around the world in dozens of specialized fields are all in a plot to fabricate a gigantic hoax on us all, because there is not one single shred of evidence to be had.
posted on July 19, 2001 09:18:54 AM"Wrong on all counts. Go back and check your "science" and try again."
Why?
Where's YOUR proof that what I saw in that program is wrong? What evidence do YOU have or can point to that would say otherwise? Hell, I hear a lot about how there's no proof, but not one single one of you has bothered to expalain why a sceintific conspiracy exists, if one exists at all; or to provide a link suggest books, etc. that I can go "educate" myself on. If there's one thing about the Round Tablke that I like is that talk is cheap and you better be able to back up any claims you make or else everyone laughs at you.
So where is YOUR evidence -- all of you claiming there is no evidence?
My last post was in response to your "freon" post of 8:27:06, as freon affects global warming. freon has no relationship to global warming and you won't find a study that says it does.
