War, Famine and Death - The Coming Global Climate Shift?

Tiberius

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
486
Reaction score
0
Location
California, USA
Country
llUnited States
The Doctor said:
Shhh! We can't let the fact that the Earth has routinely alternated between advancing continental glaciers and melting icecaps - long before Exxon, the Republican Party and the United States slow down the rush to demonize...

If we'd only had the Kyoto Protocol back in...oh...the Oligocene...we could have prevented all of that global warming and cooling. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :p
This is a tired and ridiculous argument similar to this one that I use: "Well the engine will eventualy die no matter what so I'm not going to bother changing the oil." Or "the mildew in the shower always comes back so why bother cleaning it." If you are convinced that human created pollution has no bearing on global climate change then actually make that argument. Don't use tired excuses. You can also choose to ignore the fact that, on the face of it, pollution is NOT a good thing, regardless of the proof or lack therof that it is contributing to global warming. Maybe the earth can swallow it and maybe not. But it's kind of like littering. Mexico is covered with litter but California is pretty clean. Do you want to be the litter bug of the world?
 

Prester John

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
105
Reaction score
1
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
I think you have it wrong in so far as the the cycle will continue regardless of almost anything we do, but it is unfair to blame the existance of the cycle on modern man since the cycle will continue regardless. It is fair to say though, that we shouldn't let the second world countries continue to pollute the world and burn down forests as they currently do, simply because it isn't nice and we now know better than we did 200 years ago.
 

Djarnis

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Country
llDenmark
Prester John said:
Well if you want to get serious about trying to put off the next ice age then you will have to get tough with the second world countries that are resonsible for huge CO2 releases (way more than the first world),
Are you serious?
Check the links in my signature, do you believe they are wrong?
 

Prester John

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
105
Reaction score
1
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
Djarnis said:
Are you serious?
Check the links in my signature, do you believe they are wrong?
What are they graphs of (all CO2 or just pollution)? Why isn't China there? And I don't see any graphs for CO2 removal. Is there a total carbon load somewhere? What do they have to do with the ice age cycle?
 

The Doctor

Junk Science Debunker
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
345
Reaction score
50
Location
Houston/Dallas, TX
Country
llUnited States
My biggest gripe with Kyoto is that it does not restrict greenhouse emissions from the nations whose greenhouse emissions are actually increasing. India, China, Mexico, Brazil and much of the rest of the world are not covered by Kyoto. These nations' manufacturing economies are growing exponentially with very little in the way of environmental regulation. Demand for automobiles is skyrocketing, particularly in China. Demand in Asia is the prime mover in sending oil from $25/bbl to $50/bbl.

The US (even under Republicans), Canada, Western Europe, Australia and Japan have all made great strides on their own to reduce pollution at rates their economies can sustain. Whether or not climate change is being influenced by mankind, reduction of pollution is in all of our interests.

The facts are:

1) Kyoto does not address CO2 and other greenhouse emissions in the countries whose greenhouse emissions are growing at the highest rate.
2) The average surface temperature of the earth rose 0.8 F in the 20th century – most of that increase came prior to 1940; most of the CO2 was added after 1960.
3) The earth has been in a warming trend for 300 years, since the low point of the “Little Ice Age”.
4) During this warming trend there have been cooling sub-cycles, the most recent occurred in the late 1970’s. After some of the coldest winters on record – some of today’s “Global Warming” proponents were screaming that the burning of fossil fuels was causing “Global Cooling”.

The Earth has gone through dozens of episodes of warming and cooling. Glaciers have advanced (they made Long Island and the Finger Lakes) and retreated. Sea level has risen and fallen. We can no more slow down the next Ice Age or polar meltdown than we can stop continental drift.

Greenhouse gasses and all pollutants should be reduced at economically sustainable rates. Kyoto doesn’t reduce pollution where it is fastest growing; it punishes the industrial nations that are already leading the way in environmental protection.
 

Overseer

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
2
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
The Doctor said:
My biggest gripe with Kyoto is that it does not restrict greenhouse emissions from the nations whose greenhouse emissions are actually increasing. India, China, Mexico, Brazil and much of the rest of the world are not covered by Kyoto. These nations' manufacturing economies are growing exponentially with very little in the way of environmental regulation. Demand for automobiles is skyrocketing, particularly in China. Demand in Asia is the prime mover in sending oil from $25/bbl to $50/bbl.

The US (even under Republicans), Canada, Western Europe, Australia and Japan have all made great strides on their own to reduce pollution at rates their economies can sustain. Whether or not climate change is being influenced by mankind, reduction of pollution is in all of our interests.

The facts are:

1) Kyoto does not address CO2 and other greenhouse emissions in the countries whose greenhouse emissions are growing at the highest rate.
2) The average surface temperature of the earth rose 0.8 F in the 20th century – most of that increase came prior to 1940; most of the CO2 was added after 1960.
3) The earth has been in a warming trend for 300 years, since the low point of the “Little Ice Age”.
4) During this warming trend there have been cooling sub-cycles, the most recent occurred in the late 1970’s. After some of the coldest winters on record – some of today’s “Global Warming” proponents were screaming that the burning of fossil fuels was causing “Global Cooling”.

The Earth has gone through dozens of episodes of warming and cooling. Glaciers have advanced (they made Long Island and the Finger Lakes) and retreated. Sea level has risen and fallen. We can no more slow down the next Ice Age or polar meltdown than we can stop continental drift.

Greenhouse gasses and all pollutants should be reduced at economically sustainable rates. Kyoto doesn’t reduce pollution where it is fastest growing; it punishes the industrial nations that are already leading the way in environmental protection.

Why are we so focused on just CO2? What about NOx, SO2, ground level O3 (ozone), and VOC's? All are major contributors also, and all have much more serious health risks for people than just CO2.

I'll definitely agree that Kyoto is useless because it fails to address China and Africa the two biggest areas for pollutants right now.

But we keep getting focused on just the climate change aspect (which granted is the point of this thread) but we forget about how hospital admissions increase drastically for respiratory concerns in areas that are industrialized.
 

The Doctor

Junk Science Debunker
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
345
Reaction score
50
Location
Houston/Dallas, TX
Country
llUnited States
Overseer said:
Why are we so focused on just CO2? What about NOx, SO2, ground level O3 (ozone), and VOC's? All are major contributors also, and all have much more serious health risks for people than just CO2.

I'll definitely agree that Kyoto is useless because it fails to address China and Africa the two biggest areas for pollutants right now.

But we keep getting focused on just the climate change aspect (which granted is the point of this thread) but we forget about how hospital admissions increase drastically for respiratory concerns in areas that are industrialized.
SOMETHING WE CAN AGREE ON! :clap: To a point anyway. I am all for reducing pollution at economically sustainable rates. We will probably have to agree to disagree on exactly what that sustainable rate is. Kyoto though, is simply an attempt at resource redistribution under the guise of fighting "Global Warming".

BTW - congrats on the STAR. :thumup:
 
Last edited:

Temujin

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
392
Reaction score
1
Location
Western Australia
Country
llAustralia
Overseer said:
I'll definitely agree that Kyoto is useless because it fails to address China and Africa the two biggest areas for pollutants right now.
Can someone help me out here. Why is Africa such a big polluter, China i can understand, with its industrial growth, but i can't figure out why Africa would be so bad.

Also, in the case of China, and any other similar example, arn't they better of strenghening thier industry and wealth so they can then then work on catching up to higher standards in this field? The underindustrialised nations must be given some sort of a chance to help supply decent quality of life to its citizens.

Most western industries only just meet the regulated standards of their respective countries, its not like corporations here are bustin their chops to get things done. How many western owned/ financed poluting plants are there in China?

China's car industry/market is booming too, its a good opportunity to get low emmission technology into the market and the mentality of the consumer, but sadly the biggest growth in sales seems to be American cars (unsure if this is true, heard it on radio a few weeks ago), the bigger the better. They seem to be falling for the same trap of status projection when it come to transport like the rest of us have.
 

Prester John

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
105
Reaction score
1
Location
Brisbane
Country
llAustralia
Methane is a worse gas but there are only so many cows compared to fuel burners. I don't mind so much about the third world but the second world is bad because they are so inefficient.
 

Richa333

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Location
Olympia, WA
Country
llUnited States
From what little I can remember on the subject, the combination of gasoline (siphoned from oil pipelines) fires & turd(animal!)/brush fires are what make Africa such an air-polluter. I could be wrong.
 

Overseer

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
2
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
I hate to tell you guys this, but not all of Africa is still just herds of animals and tribal lands. South Africa for example is a major source of pollution because of it's massive industrial growth (along with several other nations in Africa). Their economic growth isn't as stellar as say, China's, but their level of industrialization is running right on up.

And as a side note, there isn't much of a second world anymore, most communist governments have fallen. :p

And thanks on the Star, I didn't even realize I got it until you said something. :D (Actually, I had it before, and then with the merger I was demoted :laugh: )
 

Temujin

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
392
Reaction score
1
Location
Western Australia
Country
llAustralia
Overseer said:
And as a side note, there isn't much of a second world anymore, most communist governments have fallen. :p
Smashing! now the commies are gone we can concentrate on sucking any wealth they mught possibly have had.

Yay for freedom and democracy!!!!
 

Overseer

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
2
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
No one said anything about democracy. It's quite difficult for a country to transition to democracy, in most cases they've either never become democracies, or attempted and fell back into some other kind of authoritarian regime. In both of those cases the economies continued to suffer (which is often the mentality that the authoritarian regimes use to stay in power, it's their source of legitimacy - we need to be in complete control so that we can fix the economy). In the few cases were the states actually became democracies, many of them saw economic growth (to vary degrees). So I don't really see how economic growth relates to sucking money out of them.
 

Temujin

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
392
Reaction score
1
Location
Western Australia
Country
llAustralia
Overseer said:
I hate to tell you guys this, but not all of Africa is still just herds of animals and tribal lands. South Africa for example is a major source of pollution because of it's massive industrial growth (along with several other nations in Africa). Their economic growth isn't as stellar as say, China's, but their level of industrialization is running right on up.

And as a side note, there isn't much of a second world anymore, most communist governments have fallen. :p

And thanks on the Star, I didn't even realize I got it until you said something. :D (Actually, I had it before, and then with the merger I was demoted :laugh: )
Ok, since you have made that statement i want proof of it! :D

Show me stuff about Sth Africa.
 

Overseer

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
2
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
Last edited:

Temujin

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
392
Reaction score
1
Location
Western Australia
Country
llAustralia
Overseer said:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/safrica.html

Notice the sections on coal and environment.

If you want to see the effects on just one city (Durban):

http://www.ceroi.net/reports/durban/issues/air/pollutan.htm

I had another source that was a bit more detailed, but my bookmark for it doesn't work so I have to find the damn article again (And I needed it for a paper too ... more on that later) :mad:

Yeah but i see no relwvence, ok they are a big producer of coal, so what.
 

Overseer

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
2
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
And user. Ever hear of the damage that coal did? Check out stuff about some of the forests in Eastern Europe, damaged as a result of coal burning in the western states (And Norway as a result of England). Some forests in Eastern Europe are irreparably damaged. The same is happening to forests and such in Africa (and since the world has *gasp* a weather system, it spreads to other regions damaging crop growing, etc in other regions).
 

Djarnis

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Country
llDenmark
Prester John said:
What are they graphs of (all CO2 or just pollution)? Why isn't China there? And I don't see any graphs for CO2 removal. Is there a total carbon load somewhere? What do they have to do with the ice age cycle?
I have no idea why china isnt on the http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_pol_car_dio_199 but its a list of top 100 countries emmiting carbon dioxide.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_co2_emi
This shows CO2 emmisions, china is number 2 after the US.

I dont know your definition of second world countries, but i reacted to your claim that they have higher CO2 emmision than the first.If you look at emmisions per capita they are not even close to us.
Denmark is number 50 with 5.2 mill inhabitants. Nigeria is 51 with a 138 mio inhabitants.

Maybe Kyoto isnt the right way to solve the problems, but will you claim that we arent affecting the environment with the increased emmision of CO2?
 
Top