does anybody else know the truth about global warming

PB Forum :: Social / Political Issues
does anybody else know the truth about global warming
Author Message
flag ajsngklsagkjsdag
Posted: Jul 10, 2010 at 12:08 Quote
chrisispringles wrote:
The main cause of desertification is soil degredation due to poor farming techniques, increased pressure on the land due to massive increases in population and farming on poor soils. These combine to mean that crops fail and the topsoil dries up and breaks apart and can then be carried away by the wind. Higher temperatures play a very small part in desertification.

Either way the point of "more land was arable" is gone. Desertification, fueled by anything, is more present now than it was back then.
flag gibson19
Posted: Jul 10, 2010 at 12:10 Quote
ledzeppie wrote:
So protecting the environment by using biodegradable chemicals and by trying to burn less fossil fuels is bad? I don't care if it is a money game, you could equally argue that trying to resurrect Africa is just as much of a money pit. At least its uniting people against a common enemy... that ISN't brown people.

Even if global warming turns out to be bogus, the fact that we have slowed habitat destruction and pollution still remains a good thing.

But if we're gonna save the environment lets do it without making laws that inhibit our freedoms or cost us trillions in taxes and kill out businesses. The one thing that pisses me off the most about this whole global warming deal is they are scaring people so that they accept it as fact. This is just as much the medias fault as it is the average idiot watching the "news". I very much do not care for fear mongering
flag ajsngklsagkjsdag
Posted: Jul 10, 2010 at 12:17 Quote
There will always be fear mongering. It is part of the Western World. It is a culture of fear. No matter what problem there is, invoking fear will accompany it. In this case, at least we are invoking fear for the better.

BTW just out of curiosity, which laws inhibit freedoms (although that is kind of the definition of a law...)
flag chrisispringles
Posted: Jul 10, 2010 at 12:40 Quote
The point of more arable land isn't dead, it is known that during the MWP more land was arable than in the cooler years preceding it, that is what I was saying, as there is no modern day equivelant.

Also, you say it unites everyone: it doesn't. It is very much a way of controlling developing nations because the developed world can say 'No you are not allowed to develop using your own resources because they might hurt the sky, but you can buy some of our eco-friendly technology, which is good for the planet, to move ahead'. Rich get richer, poor get poorer, because the only countries that can acually afford eco-friendly power are developed countries, and developing countries need to take out loans, with interest, from developed countries to buy them. So the developed world is making money on making money from helping developing countries to develop, if you catch my drift. And anyway the money wasted on global warming so far could have been put to much better use: to date it stands at around $1.5 trillion.
flag gibson19
Posted: Jul 10, 2010 at 12:46 Quote
ledzeppie wrote:
There will always be fear mongering. It is part of the Western World. It is a culture of fear. No matter what problem there is, invoking fear will accompany it. In this case, at least we are invoking fear for the better.

BTW just out of curiosity, which laws inhibit freedoms (although that is kind of the definition of a law...)

Stuff like Cap and trade, higher taxes to pay for carbon taxes and bullshit like this that inhibit my freedom to keep my money.

and ya all laws inhibit freedom so I'm suggesting no laws about the environment, if people actually care about the environment then those businesses that pollute excessively or whatever will flop

Ya there is always fear mongering but this is the big on of the decade and is really the only one I have experience and can berate
flag ajsngklsagkjsdag
Posted: Jul 10, 2010 at 13:23 Quote
Why no laws about the environment. How about no laws about murder, if people really like other people, then they wont really murder them.

The Iraq war has had way more fear mongering than global warming in NA.

There are a whole wack load of things that inhibit your freedom to keep your money. Why are you going against the one that wants to protect the environment in which we live and depend on.

The rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer for years before the green movement. Developed countries will always find a way to control the developing ones. I mean on more of a grass roots level
flag gibson19
Posted: Jul 10, 2010 at 14:41 Quote
ledzeppie wrote:
Why no laws about the environment. How about no laws about murder, if people really like other people, then they wont really murder them.

The Iraq war has had way more fear mongering than global warming in NA.

There are a whole wack load of things that inhibit your freedom to keep your money. Why are you going against the one that wants to protect the environment in which we live and depend on.

The rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer for years before the green movement. Developed countries will always find a way to control the developing ones. I mean on more of a grass roots level

Well one thing worth pointing out is that this green movement is actually hurting developing nations. By making them use all this eco friendly stuff like wind power you are bankrupting them.

And your right there are a lot of things that inhibit freedom, global warming legislation is one and since this is a thread about global warming. I am not in any against helping the environment I am completely against the government being in control of it. IMO they screw everything up because they are just as greedy as businesses and out of touch.

The war in Iraq is done though (not in the sense that the fighting has stopped). Pretty much everyone agrees that it has been f*cked up beyond belief (thanks again government) but its past the point that the media can scare people from believing a certain way if you know what I'm saying. and to be honest I didn't really experience that. I lived in Canada at the time and knew it was going on but really wasn't a part of it.

As for the laws. The difference I make between murder and environment laws is that murder is direct causation. You directly kill someone, and we all agree its bad. Obviously throwing something on the side of the street is bad, and their are laws against that but some of these proposed laws such as monitoring household energy consumption and then taxing it are just ridiculous for a couple reasons. There is no way to predict the social cost of spewing out a little more carbon than your neighbor. Secondly behavioral economics research has proven that a better way to reduce pollution than taxing people is to make it the social norm to not pollute. Correctly applied peer pressure

In some country (can't remember) they did a study where a power company showed on a graph how much an individual household uses in power along with this individuals neighborhood average on the bill. Well within weeks they noticed these neighborhood's all consumed much less energy when they saw how much power they were using compared to their neighbors.

We need more things like this rather than taxes and enforcement.

With environmental laws you have regulatory bodies monitoring people to make sure of this and that, costing us not only our money but out personal privacy.
flag ajsngklsagkjsdag
Posted: Jul 10, 2010 at 14:58 Quote
The problem with developing countries though, is that because of their population, it is almost not an option to let them take the same coal-powered route that we took. It might not be fair, but using coal on that kind of scale isn't feasible. Even Britain during the industrial revolution had black snow from the pollution, imagine India with as much pollution, just on a larger scale.

You might not trust the government, but the way I see it is that the government has real control over corporations (and sometimes the other way around as well), so if we can get the government going for green, then they have the best chance at correcting the corporations. The people could get the corporations green by demanding things, but to be honest, I don't trust the people as much as you don't trust the government.

There are also proposed laws that want security cameras on every street corner. How about going against invasion of privacy, not environmentalism. Or at least be against those specific laws, not environmental laws collectively. There are plenty of good environmental laws, such as the ones that prohibit dumping chemicals into rivers and waterways. You might agree with me already on this part (then again you may completely not), but just going from the way you word and argue your response, it makes it sound like you don't.


"In some country (can't remember) they did a study where a power company showed on a graph how much an individual household uses in power along with this individuals neighborhood average on the bill."
Btw you contradict yourself right here. You say that publishing how much you use publicly is alright, but then you go on to say "With environmental laws you have regulatory bodies monitoring people to make sure of this and that, costing us not only our money but out personal privacy."
flag gibson19
Posted: Jul 10, 2010 at 19:37 Quote
ledzeppie wrote:
The problem with developing countries though, is that because of their population, it is almost not an option to let them take the same coal-powered route that we took. It might not be fair, but using coal on that kind of scale isn't feasible. Even Britain during the industrial revolution had black snow from the pollution, imagine India with as much pollution, just on a larger scale.

You might not trust the government, but the way I see it is that the government has real control over corporations (and sometimes the other way around as well), so if we can get the government going for green, then they have the best chance at correcting the corporations. The people could get the corporations green by demanding things, but to be honest, I don't trust the people as much as you don't trust the government.

There are also proposed laws that want security cameras on every street corner. How about going against invasion of privacy, not environmentalism. Or at least be against those specific laws, not environmental laws collectively. There are plenty of good environmental laws, such as the ones that prohibit dumping chemicals into rivers and waterways. You might agree with me already on this part (then again you may completely not), but just going from the way you word and argue your response, it makes it sound like you don't.


"In some country (can't remember) they did a study where a power company showed on a graph how much an individual household uses in power along with this individuals neighborhood average on the bill."
Btw you contradict yourself right here. You say that publishing how much you use publicly is alright, but then you go on to say "With environmental laws you have regulatory bodies monitoring people to make sure of this and that, costing us not only our money but out personal privacy."

I actually didn't contradict myself... For one its the power company's bill that has this information (which they already keep track of anyways) and it doesn't point out names just neighbourhoods. I was introduced to this in a lecture about how tiny things like these contribute hugely to correcting ill behaviours and much more effectively then enforcement and punishment

I agree with not trusting people. But I believe there are enough smart ones out there to push us in the right direction. And ya when I talk about environmentalism laws I'm talking about new stuff like I've mentioned, of course we shouldn't be dumping used motor oil in our gardens or let businesses do the same. These are laws that protect the direct safety of the people living in the country, state, town whatever.
flag AMBikerJJ8
Posted: Jul 11, 2010 at 13:10 Quote
ledzeppie wrote:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/efficiency/4337758

AMBiker you might get a kick out of this.

HOLY SHIT!!!!! WTF, they stole my idea! I had that idea before I read anything about anyone actually doing it for real! Sweeeeeeeet.
flag harriieee
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 at 17:56 Quote
gibson19 wrote:
Well one thing worth pointing out is that this green movement is actually hurting developing nations. By making them use all this eco friendly stuff like wind power you are bankrupting them.

I take issue with this. I was in Morocco in December. My taxi driver pointed out to me a massive expanse of unuseable scrubland, saying that 10 years ago it was farmland. Five miles down the road, we were driving past gigantic, walled and gated second homes of rich Westerners... and past that, a royally-owned golf club. Here in Peru, the desert around Lima has grown five miles toward the city in the last two decades.

Believe me, it ain't renewable energy that's hurting the third world.
flag harriieee
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 at 17:57 Quote
Freedom is massively overrated anyway.
flag ezekiel
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 at 18:36 Quote
harriieee wrote:
Freedom is massively overrated anyway.

The irony of that statement is kind of funny.
flag marty660
Posted: Jul 14, 2010 at 22:49 Quote
"A society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Ben Franklin
flag chrisispringles
Posted: Jul 15, 2010 at 3:38 Quote
@Marty: That's Britain in a nutshell today: loads of red tape and rediculous laws controlling what we can and can't do and a nation with next to no real security from anything.

@harriee: How the hell did you come up with that conclusion. Freedom is possibly the greatest thing a person can have. Between 1939 and 1945 millions of brave men and women sacrificed themselves so that you could have the freedom you have today and you have the arrogance to say that it is 'overrated'. We are incredibly lucky, we have never had to live under oppression so we don't know what a fantastic right it is. I would like to see you try and tell soldiers, who risked their lives to protect your freedom, that you think their work really doesn't matter as it is 'overrated'. You disgust me.

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.011955
Mobile Version of Website