What are your thoughts on global warming?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by mgmine, Nov 27, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mgmine

    mgmine

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    399
    Location:
    Le Roy, New York
    When 100% of the scientists agree that man is causing the problem then I'll buy in. Until then I look at both sides and still can't make up my mind. Galileo was locked up for his view on science. Today those that oppose the popular view are also being persecuted and in cases sued to shut them up. What if, just if man isn't doing any thing at all. Yes 97% of the scientists say man is causing the problem (if it even is a problem). You read about it all the time but there is not any debate time given to the opposition. What is the average person to believe when they are fed the same information from the first day they enter school. What if that information is based on false data. You know garbage in garbage out. I think it would be a great TV show to put two experts up against each other and make every person in the country or world watch it. I'm not talking experts like Al Gore since everything he wrote about turned out to be false but the press doesn't report on that. Real experts with real information and real facts not scare tactics would be put up against each other. I really do have an open mind and can be swayed either way. I cannot say that about others that I know. The topic can not even be raised with them. The science is settled, we have to change what we are doing the polar bears are dying bla bla bla. The computer models can't be wrong after all look at how they were dead on with the last election. There are so many variables in the world and in space that can cause changes it is impossible to even image them all.
     
    mgmine, Nov 27, 2016
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. mgmine

    sissy sissy

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,128
    Likes Received:
    14,187
    Location:
    Axton virginia
    To me it is there way of getting money to do research so people have jobs doing that .I was shocked to see what they spend on those meetings they have .To me they are getting a paid vacation .;)maybe it is just me
     
    sissy, Nov 27, 2016
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. mgmine

    sissy sissy

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,128
    Likes Received:
    14,187
    Location:
    Axton virginia
    ALIENS did it .They come from outer space.They don't count in what they are doing to the world here with there space rockets .
     
    sissy, Nov 27, 2016
    #3
    DutchMuch and callingcolleen1 like this.
  4. mgmine

    JBtheExplorer Native Gardener

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    3,496
    Likes Received:
    5,689
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    The best way I can answer is with various points.

    1. Global warming is not arguable, it's happening. The argument is whether it's man-made, not if it exists. Many politicians on all sides agree that it exists to some extent, including our next President. Though many refuse to believe it's man-made.
    2. There will never be 100% of scientists agreeing. Even without scientists being paid by the people who want to prove it false, you will likely never see 100% of scientists agree on anything, ever. 100% is an unreasonable expectation.
    3. Scare tactics are few and far between. If you perceive the information you're seeing as a scare tactic, it's likely because your brain recognizes it's something to be scared of. That's not something that should be brushed off as no big deal.
    4. Global warming is not political. It's being confused for politics because one side says it's man-made and the other refuses to agree with the opposing side. It's an unfortunate part of politics. If one side mentions something that they support, supporters of the other side will instantly push against it. It's one of the reasons I'm not on any side of politics.
    5. Even if you refuse to believe it's man-made, surely you can see the things accused of causing it are equally harmful to the planet and our health regardless of global warming. Cities are not supposed to be filled with smog. Water is not supposed to be polluted. Forests are not supposed to be destroyed. Burning fossil fuels does release an unsafe amount of carbon dioxide.
    6. The move to new, clean energy sources also means many new jobs. Obviously, the health of our planet is more important than jobs, but many new jobs will exist with the switch to clean energy. Jobs will be needed for those exiting the fossil fuel industry. Many countries are already moving forward with clean energy. If the US falls too far behind the technology that other countries are already putting into use, it's entirely possible that it could cause a significant impact to our economy.
    7. I know that no matter what I say, those who disagree will likely continue to disagree. Debates don't change opinions, they just cause people to feel more strongly about the opinions they already had. It's even harder to change opinions of people who "bla bla bla" the starvations and drownings of polar bears, or any animal, for that matter.

    8. This is a question, rather than a point. Why are people against the realization of man-made global warming? What is scary about agreeing that it exists? What is scary about cleaner air? I'm genuinely confused about the push against it and the push against living healthier.
     
    JBtheExplorer, Nov 27, 2016
    #4
    barryian, Becky, Nepen and 3 others like this.
  5. mgmine

    MitchM

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    6,692
    Location:
    Water Valley, Alberta
    MitchM, Nov 27, 2016
    #5
  6. mgmine

    Meyer Jordan Tadpole

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,177
    Likes Received:
    5,640
    Location:
    Pensacola, Florida
    Follow the science.......the evidence not the rhetoric. Climate change is occurring. It always has and it always will. As to man's contribution, just a little applied common sense will tell you that, Yes, Man's actions are contributing to (not necessarily causing) the present warming cycle. The increase of primarily Carbon Dioxide (a greenhouse gas) by 40% in the atmosphere since the 18th century has been attributed to human activity. This includes the combustion of carbon-based fuels, principally coal, oil, and natural gas, along with deforestation, soil erosion and animal agriculture. Add to this the explosion of the world population during thia same period , from about 700 million in 1750 to the present 7.4 billion which also means more Carbon Dioxide (and Methane) produced through respiration and digestive processes. These are established facts.
    Anecdotally, one can refer to the loss of ice mass (melting) in the polar regions, the migration of species to higher latitudes, and rising sea levels, etc. to support that global warming is occurring.
     
    Meyer Jordan, Nov 27, 2016
    #6
    CeeJayH and MitchM like this.
  7. mgmine

    Meyer Jordan Tadpole

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,177
    Likes Received:
    5,640
    Location:
    Pensacola, Florida
    The simple answer to that question is....corporate bottom line.
    It is estimated that fossil fuels usage accounts for about 80% of the global energy demand. This equate to a lot of money....and a lot of power and influence.
     
    Meyer Jordan, Nov 27, 2016
    #7
  8. mgmine

    MitchM

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    6,692
    Location:
    Water Valley, Alberta
    We can also add into this conversation the elephant in the room .
    Human overpopulation.

    This can't go on forever.

    .
     
    MitchM, Nov 27, 2016
    #8
  9. mgmine

    MitchM

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    6,692
    Location:
    Water Valley, Alberta
    oops, posted before I read this.:)

     
    MitchM, Nov 27, 2016
    #9
    Mucky_Waters likes this.
  10. mgmine

    sissy sissy

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,128
    Likes Received:
    14,187
    Location:
    Axton virginia
    over building no land left farms not there any more .Trees gone .High rises .We are a throw away society .Every new gadget that comes out they want and the old one gets tossed .We are wasteful littering people .
     
    sissy, Nov 27, 2016
    #10
    DutchMuch and Mucky_Waters like this.
  11. mgmine

    JBtheExplorer Native Gardener

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    3,496
    Likes Received:
    5,689
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    No, I certainly understand that. I'd like to hear the answer from ordinary people who are pushing against it and adamantly denying it. You never really hear them say why they're pushing against a healthier planet, only that they believe it's a hoax, but I can't remember a time where someone gave a reason for why the "hoax" was created, or why it's bad to have clean energy, though I'm sure someone, somewhere has that conspiracy theory all written out.

    Climate change denial is most commonly associated with the loss of jobs for those in the fossil fuel industries. Unfortunately, moving forward has always resulted in job loss, but it's followed by new types of jobs becoming available. Moving forward isn't possible without changes. We wouldn't have anything we have today without jobs disappearing to new jobs.
     
    JBtheExplorer, Nov 27, 2016
    #11
    Nepen and Meyer Jordan like this.
  12. mgmine

    JBtheExplorer Native Gardener

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    3,496
    Likes Received:
    5,689
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Human overpopulation is a tragedy that will probably never be addressed. It's scary. We're reproducing at an alarming rate, to say the least.
     
    JBtheExplorer, Nov 27, 2016
    #12
    MitchM likes this.
  13. mgmine

    Meyer Jordan Tadpole

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,177
    Likes Received:
    5,640
    Location:
    Pensacola, Florida
    Many people do not like change. With Global warming they are also afraid that they will be required to give up something or alter their lifestyle. This angst has been seeded and nurtured by corporate admins and their paid political lackeys.much the same way as they would sell one of their products. And they have become quite successful in putting a believable spin on anything. A prime example of this is the bottled water market.
    One of our fellow Forum members recently posted in a comment that they watched the 'news that they liked'. This world is not going to always be what 'we like' Ignoring the truth does not negate it. Isolationism at any level has never proven to be successful.
     
    Meyer Jordan, Nov 27, 2016
    #13
    Becky likes this.
  14. mgmine

    MitchM

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    6,692
    Location:
    Water Valley, Alberta
    One thing I take don't like is the disconnect on the part of some environmentalists that we could switch from selling oil to selling solar products.

    Maybe being based in Alberta I'm a little more sensitive to it, but our economy doesn't work that way. We sell our resources - oil. We can't sell sunshine.
    If we did try selling solar or wind powered products, the price we would have to sell those products for would be uncompetitive and no one would buy them.
    No problem, you say? Just get the government to provide subsidies, you say? Subsidies from the government come from business and personal taxes, which would be non existent if the businesses weren't making a profit.
    If some environmentalists want to disregard the plight that comes with putting so many people out of work, go ahead, but don't in turn be surprised when an extreme government is elected. Oh wait, that just happened.

    Then there are the oh so climate educated celebrities like Leonardo DeCaprio that come up here to Alberta and become "terrified" when he is here during some of our warm Chinook winds which he believes are a result of global warming - wrong. Warm Chinook winds have been around as long as the Rocky Mountains themselves. However, he believes that his celebrity status gives him enough star power to convince regular less educated people that our oil sands are the center of all CO2 evil. Canada's whopping 1.6% contribution to greenhouse gasses. Yes, 1.6%, that's it.
    What does DeCaprio do when he is standing by the beach when the tide comes in and out - run away in terror, convinced that the polar ice caps are freezing and thawing every 12 hours?

    Then we have poor old Darryl Hanna that flies up here on her boyfriend's private jet to protest while staying in our nice hotels, allowed to stage her protest safely with protection from our RCMP.

    Give me a break.

    Show me some celebrities that protest in China, where they contribute 30% to greenhouse gasses. maybe I'll have a little more respect for them then, after they've served their prison terms.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for saving the environment. I've voted Green in the last 2 elections because they need a voice - but the voice need more education.

    .
     
    MitchM, Nov 28, 2016
    #14
    CeeJayH likes this.
  15. mgmine

    JBtheExplorer Native Gardener

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    3,496
    Likes Received:
    5,689
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Oil supply can't meet our demand forever. Either it'll dry up or we'll move away from oil before that happens. What will Alberta do when either happens? Sure, no worries if it doesn't happen in our lifetimes, but there will be a point where it'll back Alberta into a corner if they don't come up with another source to feed their economy. Finding the solution now while oil is still plentiful would mean less impacts to your economy and less impacts to jobs, compared to waiting until it's too late.
     
    JBtheExplorer, Nov 28, 2016
    #15
  16. mgmine

    Meyer Jordan Tadpole

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    7,177
    Likes Received:
    5,640
    Location:
    Pensacola, Florida
    Excellent point, JB. A point that has been made before. I would suspect that solutions are already on the planning table with the major stakeholders (read oil companies) waiting until losses can be minimized. This strategy may or may not prove to be beneficial to the average citizen or worker.
     
    Meyer Jordan, Nov 28, 2016
    #16
  17. mgmine

    MitchM

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    6,692
    Location:
    Water Valley, Alberta
    There will always be a demand for petroleum products.
    20% of a barrel of oil is used to make things like plastics, solvents, lubricants and asphalt. Some of the items used in manufacturing and used by alternative energy products.

    The term "finding the solution now" is an easy statement to make, but means different things to different people. We need the petroleum profits to pay for more research into alternative fuels. Protesters are only delaying progress towards that. Right now they should be part of the solution by learning new technologies.
    Protesting here is easy and safe. Complaining is easy and safe. Solutions are hard.

    Why are we still importing 20% of our oil?
    How is it ok to buy oil from foreign countries who have much worse policies toward the same environment - planet earth?

    .
     
    MitchM, Nov 28, 2016
    #17
    Mucky_Waters likes this.
  18. mgmine

    MitchM

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    6,692
    Location:
    Water Valley, Alberta
    Over the weekend in Calgary, near me, there was a protest held by a group of about 100 local first nations people in our largest shopping center. Christmas shopping is on, so it was a major disruption. They formed a large circle, banged on drums and sang songs.
    They held the protest in support of of the Dakota pipeline protests presently taking place in the USA.
    What did the protesters hope to accomplish?
    I am one that believes that the best way to solve a problem is to shine a light on it, but how do we deal the fear mongering that takes place on both sides?
    How accommodating do we have to be to allow protests?
    When is protesting too disruptive?

    These are not questions with simple answers.

    Meanwhile, the USA is importing 500,000 barrels of oil per day from Nigeria, whose own lack of environmental standards are destroying mangrove forests and poor people are physically tapping into their weak pipeline network to steal oil.
    Why don't we see that in the news?

    Would you rather see oil processed in countries such as our own, who have the highest environmental standards and most advanced technological methods, or are you going to keep turning a blind eye to importing oil from countries that do far worse environmental damage to our planet?

    I think we're being too accommodating to protesters here, while environmental organizations turn a blind eye to environmental damage abroad for more money and political power.

    .
     
    MitchM, Nov 28, 2016
    #18
    Mucky_Waters likes this.
  19. mgmine

    mgmine

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    399
    Location:
    Le Roy, New York
    So much to debate here. Is oil running out? Not that long ago the scientists were saying that it was and we would be out of oil in a decade. Now with shale oil we can go on for 1000 years. Same with global warming. First we were entering an age of global cooling according to the scientists and needed to do something about it. Spreading cinders in the arctic to absorb heat was one of the suggestions. Then there was the cry that we were cutting down all the forests now it's estimated that there are more trees than ever (yes in different parts of the world not in the Amazon forests). Polar bears are diapering or are they take a look at this "scientific" proof that proves they AREN'T. Really is this science or speculation? http://www.polarbearsinternational....ntists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming. Trump will never win the election and the list goes on. At some point scientists will agree 100% on things that can be proven. Until then it should be put up or shut up. Don't refuse to allow distention or debate which the main stream media, universities, grade schools and so on do. Don't ridicule people that just want proof. So how much proof is needed? Enough to justify changing humanity for ever. When the emails from climategate were leaked the media and scientific community circled the wagons to spin what was in the emails.
     
    mgmine, Nov 28, 2016
    #19
  20. mgmine

    mgmine

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    399
    Location:
    Le Roy, New York
    What would it take to silence opposition to global warming? If it was "proven" that ink caused warming would the newspapers championing the cause agree to stop printing? How about texting? It has been shown that texting leaves a carbon footprint. So will all the millennial's stop texting? Obviously driving a car will cause carbon so would those so concerned stop driving and flying or heating their houses? If this is as serious as it seems to be then the earth should pretty much shut down. It won't because people only talk until it hurts them. Lets see a series of articles in the NY Times point out the benefits that a warmer climate would provide or possibly a series on PBS or the BBC. You won't see that because it goes against their beliefs. Show me someone that doesn't want clean air and clean water and I will show you a fool. Clean air and clean water is another problem and not a global warming one. When you mix the two you are now facing two enemies to fight.
     
    mgmine, Nov 28, 2016
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.